Thread: Start with Nothing

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So let me see if I get this straight - according to your definition - what we KNOW - that's truth, What's actually objectively TRUE whether we know it or not - that's knowledge. Um yeah...

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

Ok then, how about this - how many people have to know something in order for it to be true?

True for what? For it to be objectively true, somebody has to confirm it via the scientific method or an experiment. For it just to be true (to one observer), it has to be known. Nothing else really matters.

What if ten people know that the earth is round and everybody else believes it's flat... what's actually true then?

You are just begging for a different answer. There isn't a truth "out there" except for what has been termed a fact. You are asking for "objective truth" but I am explaining that there is more to what is considered true in each scenario.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I define relative truth as the latest theories relative to our previously accepted theories that weren't as adequate in explaining our observations. I also include the yet to be discovered theories that would be relatively true over our currently accepted theories with obvious inadequacies.

Relative truth is usually defined as something that is true within relative circumstances, or local conditions, with no particular bias except that it is differentiated from universal truths, or the absolute. That counts both objectively and subjectively, but more often in the subjective world (beliefs, decision making, attitude, etc).

Originally Posted by really

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

Your really persistent with these pointless semantics aren't you? Just for fun, I'm going to join in that game and say that there are no such things as facts, they are defined with an attitude much too absolute for describing anything in the universe, a much more appropriate term would be 'relative truth'. The earth is relatively more like a sphere than it is flat, it is not in fact a sphere.

Originally Posted by really

Relative truth is usually defined as something that is true within relative circumstances, or local conditions, with no particular bias except that it is differentiated from universal truths, or the absolute. That counts both objectively and subjectively.

Basically, how I defined it, ok.

Originally Posted by really

Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round".

What a useless and intentionally unhelpful and contrary definition of truth.

Ok really, now it's clear why you're having so much trouble participating in this discussion - the rest of us are using the standard definitions of the words while you're using obscure alternative definitions.

Rather than having to constantly stop and explain your alternative definitions and continually impede the progress of the thread, wouldn't it make sense for you to use the same definitions of words the rest of us are using? Of course the alternative is for you to teach us all your definitions, but that's obviously counterproductive. I thunk you already know the language we're speaking, though you keep insisting on speaking a different one.

Also, I'd like to point out that what you defined as Truth is actually not even Knowledge (in the example of a person who thinks the earth is flat). It's merely Belief. You could only experientially call it Knowledge (or by your definition Truth) if that person had actually experienced the entirety of the earth's surface, or enough of it to enable him to make a meaningful statement about it in its entirety. Obviously anyone who thought the earth was flat had not had any such experience - they had only experienced local portions of the earth's surface. Therefore their experience cannot speak about anything that's actually BEYOND their experience. They can speak of Knowledge (Truth by your definition) only of those portions of the earth they have visited.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok really, now it's clear why you're having so much trouble participating in this discussion - the rest of us are using the standard definitions of the words while you're using obscure alternative definitions.

Rather than having to constantly stop and explain your alternative definitions and continually impede the progress of the thread, wouldn't it make sense for you to use the same definitions of words the rest of us are using? Of course the alternative is for you to teach us all your definitions, but that's obviously counterproductive. I thunk you already know the language we're speaking, though you keep insisting on speaking a different one.

Let's see!

- "The quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Are you surprised to know that these apply to my view? "Fact or reality."

Also, I'd like to point out that what you defined as Truth is actually not even Knowledge (in the example of a person who thinks the earth is flat). It's merely Belief. You could only experientially call it Knowledge (or by your definition Truth) if that person had actually experienced the entirety of the earth's surface, or enough of it to enable him to make a meaningful statement about it in its entirety.

What I mean by experiential is that the truth is derived from his experience or observation. If all of it indicates that the world is flat, then to his knowledge the world is truthfully flat. If he claims this, and then his claim is later disproven; his claim is wrong, but the truth of his observation has not become false, only misrepresented. It has become false as a claim to be more than an observation, which is to be a physical reality as well.

Obviously anyone who thought the earth was flat had not had any such experience - they had only experienced local portions of the earth's surface. Therefore their experience cannot speak about anything that's actually BEYOND their experience. They can speak of Knowledge (Truth by your definition) only of those portions of the earth they have visited.

That's right, but the reality of the experience itself; the experience of those conditions was never anything else than what it was - I.e. the truth of that experience was sufficient in that perspective. Given the technology, culture, time and place, the thought that "the world is flat" has no demand (or perhaps motivation) to be assured or corrected, until perhaps it is made practical to do so. If you walk outside right now, it doesn't take much for the experience to leave a sufficient impression, that it is flat.

You are stuck with correcting the "belief" and calling it right or wrong, but that doesn't change the truth of that belief. The truth can be many things; it can be that the earth is flat, it can be that it is round, it can be that it is two or three dimensional, but what are we talking about here? Obviously I'm not asking whether or not their belief is concordant with the reality in the external world, I'm giving attention to what makes their belief what it is - it is true on that level. That is relative truth; that is the reality of that belief.

So the problems with the discussion here is mainly that you (and others here) are using the often presumed context for truth in an exclusive sense; i.e. that the truth is only what is in accordance with the "objective" (albeit often physical) world. But truth and its objectivity apply to anything and everything that is real; yes beliefs too.

To summarize and return to the point of the topic, where I started:

Truth will always depend on context. Reality is never void of truth or context on some level, and that is already present inside our knowledge. Where there is truth, there is reality, and neither can exist without knowledge.


Let's put this back on topic. I don't think I need to add anything, but this all basically started from here:

Originally Posted by Xei

If you're defining knowledge to mean absolute certainty of 'truth itself', then we have no knowledge. So it's a pretty useless definition.

Originally Posted by really

I use the experiential definition of truth, which is much more practical and essential. An objective truth is simply called a fact.

Originally Posted by really

(definition of Truth)
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Complete and utter fail.

I agree with Darkmatters. Semantics were an issue when there was grey area in the OP and it needed to be expounded upon for specificity's sake. Now it's just arguing for the sake of arguing, and it's clear which definitions the general populace are going to stick by... making those definitions the only sensible ones to use.

Well, I guess between this and lidybug's "All Points of View are Truth" thread I'm getting some insight now into a certain type of person who believes in this "experiential" perspective. They're very difficult to communicate with.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I guess between this and lidybug's "All Points of View are Truth" thread I'm getting some insight now into a certain type of person who believes in this "experiential" perspective. They're very difficult to communicate with.

Meh. I am a happy practitioner the "experiential" perspective of reality. It lies at the basis of both buddhist metaphysics and the outgrowth of christian metaphysics that became "science". By itself, it creates a lightweight, adaptable view of the world that doesn't leave one clinging to pre-concieved notions in the face of actual, experiential reality. Learning to separate things that are inferred through some model of reality from things that are actually experienced is a great exercise in mindfulness and clear thinking. Pursuing it to the foundations of whatever belief system you start with (and watching said believe system disolve into a puddle of delusion) seems to be an awesome process.

Words are one of the primary tools that we use to wall ourselves off from experiential reality. If one is going to think at all (more trouble than it's worth most of the time in my experience) one might as well think clearly. Having words clearly defined is pretty much a prerequisite for this.

So in no way should redefining words be in any way a symptom of practicing the "experiential perspective" of reality. I'm guilty of doing things like that myself sometimes just to tweak with people. I do think it has it's role to play in breaking assumptions but more often than not, it just leads to more confusion.

Note that most people that don't practice the "experiental perspective" of reality don't define their words clearly themselves, though they do keep their usage inside the bounds where "everyone knows what it means". Whatever that means. Furthermore, most people, regardless of their view of reality seem either unwilling or unable to distinquish between here and now reality and metaphysical assumptions. For one that tries to do both of these things, it can feel like words are being tossed around in a haphazard, masturbatory manner anyways with everybody talking past everybody else and so why not come in with something out of left field and make them think.

People then note real masters pulling tricks like that and try to mimick them to sound like heavy duty spiritual dudes.

At any rate, unless you can demonstrate a causal connection between practicing the experiential view of reality and being difficult to communicate with, you might just be adding another brick to the wall of your own delusion in making that particular assumption

The OP: how about..

Off - ON - Pulse - Wave - etc.?

Most words I've tried as the first in the sequence have (need) an opposite.. they're all comparative terms: nothing/something, off/on, stillness/motion, inaction/action, etc.

So does it all start with binary?

No/Yes?

A good word for an opposite of the word "time" would be nice, though.

Oh..

Stop/Start.. maybe.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Complete and utter fail.

As if I didn't elaborate. No thanks to you for acknowledging the rest of my post.

All I did was draw the value of truth into the experience, I.e. the experiential. The only reason why it won't bear facts is because experiential truths are often improvable, not because they aren't real.


Edit: PhilosopherStoned, I hope you don't think I'm "practicing" anything here. This all really applies whether people like it or not.

Did you miss the fact that in one post you said "Truth is what we know - objective reality is simply called Fact" and then in a later post you defined Truth as Fact? Totally self-contradictory.

And I did try to read the rest of your post, but it became hopelessly muddled.

PhilosopherStoned - I have no trouble understanding you. And I'll completely agree - "We" don't really define "our" terms clearly , and that is a major cause of confusion - but at the very least to carry on a conversation like this we should all use the accepted definitions of terms. I think really's continued refusal to do so is annoying and amounts to little more than trolling - especially considering he's now using completely contradictory definitions for Truth!

And I'll also agree that what we call Objective Truth is really only an approximation - as close as Science can get to understanding the truth, and even then each of us has an incomplete or confused understanding of the scientific consensus.

What all this points to is that, in order for a group of people to meaningfully discuss such a topic it's necessary to define terms and all agree to use the same definitions. As I've said elsewhere on the board, a huge step toward finding a solution is simply to properly define the question so as to remove as much confusion as possible. That's why I'm so gung-ho on this.

Lol not that I think we're going to make any real headway on this topic - I suspect this discussion has pretty well run its course unless somebody can come in with something shiny and new.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Did you miss the fact that in one post you said "Truth is what we know - objective reality is simply called Fact" and then in a later post you defined Truth as Fact? Totally self-contradictory.

If it makes you happy, how about you ignore the truth and fact problem, which is semantics more than anything. I thought I'd make a distinction to further clarify my point but obviously it didn't help.

Now what are you left with?

Question: Is it a fact that knowledge is real? (Real - having existence on any level). If you answered "yes", then knowledge is always true in itself, because we always experience knowledge or knowing in some way, and:

- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Originally Posted by really

Let's see!

- "The quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".
- "That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

These are basically circular definitions so let's go beyond them. What is "true", "fact" and "reality"? Beyond that, those definitions are only thin veils over an undefined term.

What I mean by experiential is that the truth is derived from his experience or observation. If all of it indicates that the world is flat, then to his knowledge the world is truthfully flat. If he claims this, and then his claim is later disproven; his claim is wrong, but the truth of his observation has not become false, only misrepresented. It has become false as a claim to be more than an observation, which is to be a physical reality as well.

So truth is an idea? really? If you want to talk about truth then I would say that it only lays in and in fact is direct experience. You're already talking about "earth" and "flat" and making all sorts of metaphysical assumptions to do so. It will never be the case that the thought structure "the earth is flat" is true in any meaningfull sense. Why are you arguing that it will be?

That's right, but the reality of the experience itself; the experience of those conditions was never anything else than what it was - I.e. the truth of that experience was sufficient in that perspective. Given the technology, culture, time and place, the thought that "the world is flat" has no demand (or perhaps motivation) to be assured or corrected, until perhaps it is made practical to do so. If you walk outside right now, it doesn't take much for the experience to leave a sufficient impression, that it is flat.

You're contradicting yourself here. Again, is the idea that the "world" is "flat" in any way reality?

You are stuck with correcting the "belief" and calling it right or wrong, but that doesn't change the truth of that belief.

That's exactly what you're doing with the same result.

The truth can be many things; it can be that the earth is flat, it can be that it is round, it can be that it is two or three dimensional, but what are we talking about here? Obviously I'm not asking whether or not their belief is concordant with the reality in the external world, I'm giving attention to what makes their belief what it is - it is true on that level. That is relative truth; that is the reality of that belief.

If everybody just treated any assertion you make that "S is true" as if it were the assertion that "It is true that somebody believes that S is true" then I don't think there would be any confusion. That's basically what you mean when you use the word "true".

So the problems with the discussion here is mainly that you (and others here) are using the often presumed context for truth in an exclusive sense; i.e. that the truth is only what is in accordance with the "objective" (albeit often physical) world. But truth and its objectivity apply to anything and everything that is real; yes beliefs too.

What you seem to be doing here is trying to move from the western notion of 5 senses to the buddhist notion of 6 senses ("mind" is the sixth with "thought" as its object). In that sense, it can be said that "beliefs" are real and this is a very useful perspective to take for personal transformation and daily living. But then you are the one trying to apply an exclusive context to determine the meaning of truth. If you don't want to think of it in the buddhist sense, then how else would you describe it?

To summarize and return to the point of the topic, where I started:

Truth will always depend on context. Reality is never void of truth or context on some level, and that is already present inside our knowledge. Where there is truth, there is reality, and neither can exist without knowledge.

As others have pointed out, this is diametrically opposed to the prevailing notion of truth and will do nothing but confuse.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

These are basically circular definitions so let's go beyond them. What is "true", "fact" and "reality"? Beyond that, those definitions are only thin veils over an undefined term.

"Truth" as a stand-alone word, really doesn't need any definition because it cannot be defined explicitly by itself. It only becomes meaningful inside context (which I may have alluded to as definitions as well). In this case, the context of knowledge itself is the one that encompasses every other truth, but when it comes to whether or not something is true in the outer physical world: it is exclusive and specific.

So truth is an idea? really? If you want to talk about truth then I would say that it only lays in and in fact is direct experience. You're already talking about "earth" and "flat" and making all sorts of metaphysical assumptions to do so. It will never be the case that the thought structure "the earth is flat" is true in any meaningfull sense. Why are you arguing that it will be?

Of course it is - it is meaningful via the direct experience, otherwise such a phrase would have never come into existence. The very presence of the phrase means it had to appear true. You would not say "the world is flat!" if you were under the impression that it was round, unless you were being sarcastic, etc.

You're contradicting yourself here. Again, is the idea that the "world" is "flat" in any way reality?

Yes, in the reality of the observation itself, nothing more or less. The "observer," knows of that observation completely and directly.

That's exactly what you're doing with the same result.

How do you think so? I have no clue.

If everybody just treated any assertion you make that "S is true" as if it were the assertion that "It is true that somebody believes that S is true" then I don't think there would be any confusion. That's basically what you mean when you use the word "true".

That's probably a more blunt way to write it than I have, so you could say that. However you mustn't then discard the significance it bears by just calling it a "belief", because that is beside the point; it is equally founded and unbiased as any other assertion a person can make.

What you seem to be doing here is trying to move from the western notion of 5 senses to the buddhist notion of 6 senses ("mind" is the sixth with "thought" as its object). In that sense, it can be said that "beliefs" are real and this is a very useful perspective to take for personal transformation and daily living. But then you are the one trying to apply an exclusive context to determine the meaning of truth. If you don't want to think of it in the buddhist sense, then how else would you describe it?

Interesting, but that's not exactly where I'm coming from. Yes, thoughts and beliefs can be objects, but so can anything we choose to talk about. And because they exist, they bear truth and reality in some way. Just how is that an exclusive context that in turn rejects the a priori attribute?

As others have pointed out, this is diametrically opposed to the prevailing notion of truth and will do nothing but confuse.

As far as I'm concerned, nobody has "pointed" out how it is incorrect, at least not specifically enough, and if they did, their own argument would also fail. Because what I have stated there is what makes it possible in the first place.

Ok, now I see I misunderstood something. When I said that really and lidybug (as well as a few other people on the board) are hard to understand, I was assuming that what they had in common is this "experiential" viewpoint. But now PhilosopherStoned, who says he comes from the experiential viewpoint, seems to disagree fundamentally with what really is saying. So maybe experientialism isn't what causes what I see as an essentially 'inside-out' viewpoint, where subjective interior experience is treated as if it's the only reality and objective truth is treated as if it's unimportant or possibly meaningless.

The reason I said lidybug was hard to understand is because I couldn't agree with or make sense of what she was saying until I suddenly understood that every time she said Truth I needed to insert the word Subjective in front of it. When I did that, then suddenly I found it all made sense and I could agree with it. And it turns out the same is true for really, though he hid the fact for many posts in a row before finally revealing it, as if we were supposed to somehow just know.

To me this is inside-out from the way I and most people I know perceive reality. We give preeminence to the objective realities that we all perceive in the external world - especially those that have been tested and codified by science - whereas these 'inside-out' people give preeminence to interior subjective experience. And by experience they seem to mean not actual physical experience, but only belief.

Talking to them is literally like stepping through a looking glass and conversing with the Mad Hatter. Everything is turned inside-out - our external reality is their wispy dream, and their unfounded and untested belief comprises the most essential reality for them. I'm constantly baffled and frustrated in my attempts to communicate - well with really anyway, not so much with lidybug. When I suggested to her that I could understand her better when I put the word Subjective in front of her Truth she accepted it, but really seems bound and determined to deny this attempt on my part to find some way to connect our views so we can communicate effectively. He seems to feel that he's absolutely right and can't seem to understand anyone else's viewpoint, even though obviously 'our' viewpoint is the common one shared by most people in the world. This seems hopelessly insular to me and abstruse.

So really - no hard feelings, but I'm done trying to communicate with you. It's too frustrating. Maybe PS can get through...

Originally Posted by really

In this case, the context of knowledge itself is the one that encompasses every other truth, but when it comes to whether or not something is true in the outer physical world: it is exclusive and specific.

You're doing it again. What is this "outer physical world"?

Of course it is - it is meaningful via the direct experience, otherwise such a phrase would have never come into existence.

So you directly experience "the earth"? Or do you directly experience the touch sensation of pressure on your feet, the color of your surroundings and so on? Are you then superimposing your ideas onto reality?

The very presence of the phrase means it had to appear true. You would not say "the world is flat!" if you were under the impression that it was round, unless you were being sarcastic, etc.

No of course not. But then the "world" isn't "flat" is it? Look at it. See that footprint an ant just made? It's not flat. What do you mean by "flat" for the statement to be true?

Yes, in the reality of the observation itself, nothing more or less. The "observer," knows of that observation completely and directly.

So what is all this stuff about "earth" and "flat"? Is that knowing experience completely and directly?

I can't decipher any of this other stuff you're writing. It strikes me as a lot of psuedo-spiritual masturbation. Is that what it is? Are you just trying to sound deep?

I will concede that people behave as if their ideas are synonomous with reality. This does not make the statement that the world is flat or the world is round or any other statement true. On the one hand, you're arguing for the truth of direct experience and on the other hand arguing that some statements (which have nothing to do with direct experience) are true. Which is it? Is your "reality" reality or is it delusion?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, now I see I misunderstood something. When I said that really and lidybug (as well as a few other people on the board) are hard to understand, I was assuming that what they had in common is this "experiential" viewpoint. But now PhilosopherStoned, who says he comes from the experiential viewpoint, seems to disagree fundamentally with what really is saying. So maybe experientialism isn't what causes what I see as an essentially 'inside-out' viewpoint, where subjective interior experience is treated as if it's the only reality and objective truth is treated as if it's unimportant or possibly meaningless.

Just to note: I treat it as a fundamental irreducible reality, and therefore the objective external world is not rejected but seen as still falling inside the subjective.

Talking to them is literally like stepping through a looking glass and conversing with the Mad Hatter. Everything is turned inside-out - our external reality is their wispy dream, and their unfounded and untested belief comprises the most essential reality for them. I'm constantly baffled and frustrated in my attempts to communicate - well with really anyway, not so much with lidybug. When I suggested to her that I could understand her better when I put the word Subjective in front of her Truth she accepted it, but really seems bound and determined to deny this attempt on my part to find some way to connect our views so we can communicate effectively. He seems to feel that he's absolutely right and can't seem to understand anyone else's viewpoint, even though obviously 'our' viewpoint is the common one shared by most people in the world. This seems hopelessly insular to me and abstruse.

So really - no hard feelings, but I'm done trying to communicate with you. It's too frustrating. Maybe PS can get through...

No hard feelings maybe, but you are probably being condescending by talking about me like that in third person, not to mention being very narrow-minded about how somebody can hold a different view to yours.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You're doing it again. What is this "outer physical world"?

I am doing what?

What people commonly refer to as "objective" is the physical, provable world; different from the internal sensing/belief/experience world. When people speak of objective in the position of rejecting the subjective, they are making an exclusive argument. I'll repeat that this is why I preferred that I reject the term "factual" as truth, since nobody can derive a fact from something (true) that they cannot prove.

But who knows of those beliefs better than anyone else, even if they are delusional? Somebody observes them and knows them directly; they are true to knowledge; knowledge within a conscious being. Furthermore if their belief was corrected, their outlook would still be true to their knowledge, right or wrong, and so there is never a time when knowledge is empty or non-existent, which means that knowledge and truth meet.

So you directly experience "the earth"? Or do you directly experience the touch sensation of pressure on your feet, the color of your surroundings and so on? Are you then superimposing your ideas onto reality?

You experience the senses, thoughts and beliefs, which together perceive the world. Could it could have ever been any other way? The totality of this is directly real to the observer. We all know senses can still mislead and may not correlate with the external world. However the subjective phenomena is still perfectly true as an experience, this goes for scientists as anybody else.

No of course not. But then the "world" isn't "flat" is it? Look at it. See that footprint an ant just made? It's not flat. What do you mean by "flat" for the statement to be true?

It could mean a whole range of things, now that you bring it up. But why does it matter? The word is just an adjective that is applied to the world for some particular reason - a reason that had to initially appear true. So because it is not my truth, I cannot really share it with you, so maybe ask somebody who believes in a flat world and they will share their truth with you.

I will concede that people behave as if their ideas are synonomous with reality. This does not make the statement that the world is flat or the world is round or any other statement true. On the one hand, you're arguing for the truth of direct experience and on the other hand arguing that some statements (which have nothing to do with direct experience) are true. Which is it? Is your "reality" reality or is it delusion?

Once again, it looks like you're missing the point that truth depends on context, that applies to people on both ends of this discussion, and therefore I am not entirely rejecting one view here but simply preferring the other.

Truth is exclusive in proof:
- Are ideas synonymous with reality (model / concept of real world)
Truth is all-inclusive in knowledge (intrinsic):
- Ideas are real whether they are right or wrong.

I hope this hasn't deviated too far from the topic.

The world is oblate.

Originally Posted by really

I hope this hasn't deviated too far from the topic.

Lol you have to go back a page or two to find the topic - we've effectively killed that!

Originally Posted by really

No hard feelings maybe, but you are probably being condescending by talking about me like that in third person, not to mention being very narrow-minded about how somebody can hold a different view to yours.

I'm not trying to be condescending at all - I'm completely frustrated with trying to communicate clearly with you but I'm struggling to understand why it is that we can't communicate, and I thought other people might be able to shed some light on it if I bring it up, or maybe I might be able to understand better by writing about it. And yes, I suppose I am being a bit narrow-minded (not out of spite, but because I simply can't understand where you're coming from) - but then you're doing the same, aren't you? I'm at least asking questions and trying to understand your viewpoint so we can get past our communication problems, you keep compounding those problems and refusing every offer anyone makes of getting the conversation on terms we can all agree on.

On the subject of belief that the world was flat - first, of course it's irrelevant to say "It's not really flat, it's bumpy" (Bad PhilosopherStoned!). You KNOW what is meant here - that the world was thought to be a surface with edges that people could fall off of as opposed to a (bumpy, irregular) sphere. That was a straw man argument.

But - really - why insist on calling Belief Truth - why not just call it Belief? The only way it can be said to be truth is if you play all your word games which is essentially the same as putting the word Subjective in parentheses in front of Truth. It complicates language.

You said that the Objective is included in this subjective Truth. So doesn't that mean that, now that it's been proved (albeit by somebody else) that the world is indeed a sphere, that this knowledge now becomes a part of even our inner Truth? I may have never experienced the totality of the earth to prove to myself that it's spherical, but that fact has indeed been proven, and I have experienced it secondhand by reading about it. If we reject all of science because we haven't personally done the experiments, we end up living in an insular state unaware of anything except what's inside of us.

The funny thing is that Wayfarer and I are on the same side of this discussion, whereas recently we engaged in almost the same discussion and I took a side very similar to the one really is arguing here. The difference being that I didn't keep telling Wayfarer that his definitions of common words are wrong and he needs to stop using them. My only point then was that we can't PROVE anything exists outside of subjective experience - not that this fact means we need to redefine commonly used words to mean the opposite of what they already mean.

So really - speaking directly to you now - I basically understand your viewpoint, all I'm saying is that if you refuse to use the same definitions of words the rest of us (and the entire world) use, then you can't expect to take a meaningful part in the conversation. I mean look - all you've been doing for a dozen posts in a row now is explaining your definitions of common words - and they're extremely different from the definitions everyone else uses. Do you honestly expect everyone else to suddenly agree to use your definitions? (Which is problematic since you defined Truth as something different from Fact in one post, and in a later one you defined it as Fact).

Originally Posted by Dianeva

While contemplating the initial reason for things, one must start with nothing. This is because, if you start with something, and that something has no cause for its existence, then that something is completely arbitrary. It could have not existed. The essence of everything is still nothingness, the thing that exists still sprung from nothingness.

Whatever that first cause is, it was completely arbitrary.

And (to all the children), congratulations! You nailed it. You've not only become in-tune with Dianeva essence, but also personally and beautifully echoed that sound of juicy, first cause--the whole cosmic Song of Itself--as provided in your very own quote below:

Originally Posted by Dianeva

fuck you.

Within this particular utterance, you relive both the initial pang of existence and the last whimper of ecstasy. Ironical nothing succumbs considerately to something, and thus gives way to significance, to Dianeva. With every fuck you is another twirling victory in this grand cosmic dance--another bursting I twisted round a throbbing you, waltzing over samsara's paved footsteps, revolving eternally.

Originally Posted by Oneiro

So does it all start with binary?

What a thrill it is to be.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.

I admit that I haven't read this thread in weeks. I'm too tired now so I'll read through it tomorrow. But from skimming the last post it seems some kind of religion has been formed with me as a symbol, and I'm happy about that.

Originally Posted by really

Just to note: I treat it as a fundamental irreducible reality, and therefore the objective external world is not rejected but seen as still falling inside the subjective

so it makes you up as it goes?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I'm not trying to be condescending at all - I'm completely frustrated with trying to communicate clearly with you but I'm struggling to understand why it is that we can't communicate, and I thought other people might be able to shed some light on it if I bring it up, or maybe I might be able to understand better by writing about it. And yes, I suppose I am being a bit narrow-minded (not out of spite, but because I simply can't understand where you're coming from) - but then you're doing the same, aren't you? I'm at least asking questions and trying to understand your viewpoint so we can get past our communication problems, you keep compounding those problems and refusing every offer anyone makes of getting the conversation on terms we can all agree on.

It is funny because I have no need to make up terms that we can all agree with, I am using the same definition as you, and everybody else. Did I not quote them earlier? The only difference is the degree to which they are applied.

But - really - why insist on calling Belief Truth - why not just call it Belief? The only way it can be said to be truth is if you play all your word games which is essentially the same as putting the word Subjective in parentheses in front of Truth. It complicates language.

Did I insist on calling 'Belief Truth'? Why the capital 'T'?

You said that the Objective is included in this subjective Truth. So doesn't that mean that, now that it's been proved (albeit by somebody else) that the world is indeed a sphere, that this knowledge now becomes a part of even our inner Truth?

If it was proven. Otherwise do you really expect somebody to "experience" the whole earth (e.g. they must go into orbit first)? The belief that it was flat was still true to the observer, but that doesn't change the shape of the earth does it?

I may have never experienced the totality of the earth to prove to myself that it's spherical, but that fact has indeed been proven, and I have experienced it secondhand by reading about it. If we reject all of science because we haven't personally done the experiments, we end up living in an insular state unaware of anything except what's inside of us.

That's not what I'm saying. Honestly have you never heard of a relative truth?

So really - speaking directly to you now - I basically understand your viewpoint, all I'm saying is that if you refuse to use the same definitions of words the rest of us (and the entire world) use, then you can't expect to take a meaningful part in the conversation. I mean look - all you've been doing for a dozen posts in a row now is explaining your definitions of common words - and they're extremely different from the definitions everyone else uses. Do you honestly expect everyone else to suddenly agree to use your definitions? (Which is problematic since you defined Truth as something different from Fact in one post, and in a later one you defined it as Fact).

If you think I have to redefine anything, I think you are misunderstanding me. Nothing is extremely different at all, except your skewed interpretation. You have to be honest and ask what is truth? I am not speaking as a relativist, but I am saying that for there to be an absolute truth there are also relative truths. Truth is whatever is real, until contexts are applied; e.g. speaking only of the external world vs. inner world creates an exclusion of personal belief and an importance on science/experiments.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

so it makes you up as it goes?

The subjective is essentially the world of the observer. If there is no observer, there is no objective universe either. So two things: Unless otherwise stated, the observer or subjectivity must not be excluded from speaking of objective truth; or the "objective" truth is not the most persistent truth. Because having truth only applied to the outer world is obviously only half the story of reality, is it not?