Truth Is Greater Than Man

[dianna]

Truth Is Greater Than Man
By Gabriel Chiron


http://25.media.tumblr.com/effe4f4af867eeae154df1c615738e8a/tumblr_mf7oru4oXz1qfa8kuo1_500.jpg





The average man or woman on the planet Earth does not seek greater truth beyond conditioned contemporary dogma of belief and disbelief. Truth is cosmic, but religion cannot handle it. Truth is metaphysical, but science cannot accept it. Truth is revelation, but government is constantly covering up its wrong doing, its corruption and incompetence, its bad decision-making. All throughout normal society is this collusion against greater truth, this mutually reinforcing idle chatter without serious inquiry, this anti-ontological conspiracy. The self-enclosed social self keeps itself oblivious to the great cosmic and metaphysical issues. When the social self, the member of society, is not talking to other social selves about various superficial nothings, it is just blanking out and staring stupidly into space or rushing about with that pressured, unhappy look on the face.

The spirit of inquiry, the search for greater truth beyond religion and science, the profound seriousness of doing real thinking, philosophy and ontology – these are almost totally lacking in humanity. Humanity is therefore subhuman from lack of genuine intelligence. The vast majority are not evolving; they do not have a viable learning process; they are stuck in first paradigm; they automatically reject any emergent facts or realities that do not fit their brain dead cognitive pattern of belief and disbelief. They watch too much television.

This very article, this particular website, is unpopular for all the wrong reasons. Greater truth is a problem in the sociology of knowledge. Any rare individual who is doing real thinking, metaphysical exploration and cosmic learning has experienced the peculiar isolation that comes with having to get along in daily life without meaningful dialogue or shared real inquiry. The people in one’s life are pre-philosophical, pre-inquiry, pre-evolutionary, pre-learning. They just haven’t got it in them. They are helpless victims of collective hypnosis. Yet most of them imagine they “think for themselves” because they avoid questioning a real thinker when they encounter one. Scientists and professional people, for instance, imagine they are quite brilliantly intelligent, though in actual fact they are rather arrogant and limited in their so-called “thinking”. The same thing is true of management consultants with their self-selected positions as experts on human learning in both individuals and groups. Business leaders in particular are often the most pseudo-philosophical representatives of learning disabilities on the planet. We cannot give to them what they believe they have already got. They, along with the political leaders, are wrecking the planet with their proud stupidities, but they refuse to see obvious things. This refusal has all the earmarks of cognitive dissonance. Most of them do not even know what that term means. It is all part of the anti-ontological conspiracy that pervades humanity as an unconscious collusion, a zombie jamboree.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YF2JcpbY35M/T4uBsBHnvJI/AAAAAAAACPY/g5UsAH8ZeS8/s1600/When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View-_Cover.jpg

Truth is greater than man. Truth is beyond social acceptance. Truth is maladjusted and cannot fit into the massively dumb patterns of ordinary relationships and activities. Greater truth is an unheeded voice in the desert, a superhuman entity of the Unknown who no one on Earth wants to meet. Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another. How can there be learning when learning is itself an undiscussible surrounded by self-protective defensive routines?

A lack of self-starting initiative in both philosophy and something beyond philosophy like Zen, is the other side of a self-inhibiting willful ignorance, a refusal to learn. Those who find the energy or spirit of inquiry mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible, secretly want it mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible. Cultivating confusion about all this is the easy method of remaining confused. There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb. People do not inquire beyond their knowledge because they do not want to have any disturbing shift in their knowledge pattern. The cognitive system is calm and stable through avoiding any disturbing new truth. When the juice of information is running in the same old grooves and ruts, the boring member of society can feel confident, sociable and witty. The protective shield of confusion requires being too busy to think beyond the current pattern of consensus reality. The slight learning that will take place will come only from shock, but humanity drifts into catastrophe more easily than it learns from the shocking aftermath. Lack of ontological initiative is deadly, invariably fatal, but most people do not want to ask advice from their inevitable death. It is always easier to be “interested” in philosophy and metaphysics than to develop originary ontological initiative. Many books on philosophy, Zen and far-out subjects can be read at one’s convenience as a noble avoidance of real thinking and meditation. Adding to one’s existing knowledge pattern is not shifting it, not learning, not full cycles of deconstruction and reconstruction, not genuine exploration of the Unknown, not merging with the Unknowable.

The lack of initiative in consciousness, the deliberate suppression of energetic awakening, is the fundamental tragedy of ordinary human existence. Without the spirit of inquiry (which means daily drifting in an unmagical life) the average human being is committing spiritual suicide. Any real thinker who is awake to all this will have to directly witness this ugly problem in his or her personal relationships. The stupid stare of heedlessness becomes a heavily familiar sight, an ever-present heaviness of the psychic atmosphere. It becomes tempting to deny one’s human needs if it would liberate oneself from the company of self-enclosed, thoughtless and deliberately confused idiots who cannot understand why one is so seriously provocative about philosophical and evolutionary issues. This is why one of the principles of the Sufi Way is solitude-in-company. It is because the companions are not going to be inquiring, thinking and learning. They are going to remain stuck in their self-enclosed head trips and their shallow talk when one is not around. They are going to stonewall any real thinker/explorer in their company, even if they are emotionally attached to the physical body and personality of such a real human being. The common anti-ontological conspiracy becomes the unconscious psychological torturing of anyone who has begun to awaken and exercise genuine intelligence. Therefore, it requires an immense psychological strength to exercise personal philosophical and spiritual initiative on the-planet-of-the-apes we call Earth. One becomes a local alien like The Man Who Fell To Earth.

Truth is greater than man, so it becomes a long, lonely and difficult road for an authentic human being who is in the world but not of the world. The sociology of knowledge is a misnomer. The sociology of ignorance is a more clear perspective. The psychological pressures that come with the awakening of genuine inquiry into greater truth are indeed daunting. The loss of normalcy can become a prolonged personal devastation requiring extraordinary strategies for personal survival. Many of the teachings of the New Seer, Juan Matus, as given to Carlos Castaneda, were in and around this problem. The warrior-traveler, the explorer of the extraordinary unknown, will have to deal with terrible tensions in all the necessary ordinary relationships with the mentally blind and dull, the neurotic and shallow, the silly and proud. People can be emotional or nasty, but they are incapable of learning.

In a world where a university education is false and for the most part useless, it is difficult to find an alternative route up Mount Analogue. The university student needs an inquiry into greater realities that his or her professors cannot handle. To keep alive real learning while simultaneously having to accumulate false learning is no easy task. One lives the life of a cognitive double agent. One has to be convincingly post-modern and skeptical to avoid being socially martyred over real metaphysics. This is because Truth is going to remain greater than man, which will inevitably cause pain in your personal relationships.

[Milneman]

I have a couple of problems with this essay.

First of all, it describes the situation around truth in a way that almost makes it seem impossible for any human being to achieve it, then it discourages them from wanting truth because of the solitude involved in living the truth.

This is not always the case: one can live in truth, real truth, and not be isolated or experiencing life as a series of difficulties.

Secondly, it provides no concrete means for understanding or incorporating what "truth" is into one's life. It gives vague descriptions and metaphysical generalities, but the bottom line?

It's a buncha twaddle. I don't think the writer understands the implications of real truth, or if they do, they've only seen a glimpse, slipped back into the darkness of the mundane world, and begrudgingly preached what he or she only were able to grasp for a moment.

[dianna]

I have a couple of problems with this essay.

First of all, it describes the situation around truth in a way that almost makes it seem impossible for any human being to achieve it, then it discourages them from wanting truth because of the solitude involved in living the truth.

This is not always the case: one can live in truth, real truth, and not be isolated or experiencing life as a series of difficulties.

Secondly, it provides no concrete means for understanding or incorporating what "truth" is into one's life. It gives vague descriptions and metaphysical generalities, but the bottom line?

It's a buncha twaddle. I don't think the writer understands the implications of real truth, or if they do, they've only seen a glimpse, slipped back into the darkness of the mundane world, and begrudgingly preached what he or she only were able to grasp for a moment.

Personally, I though it was a pretty good essay and fairly well written … why don't you go through it point by point and deconstruct it, that would be very interesting and something I should like to read (just a suggestion since you have a pretty strong reaction to it)

[Milneman]

Gimme a couple days, done deal Dianna! :) I'd love to try and unpack it for ya. :)

[gnostic9]

Truth Is Greater Than Man
By Gabriel Chiron


http://25.media.tumblr.com/effe4f4af867eeae154df1c615738e8a/tumblr_mf7oru4oXz1qfa8kuo1_500.jpg





The average man or woman on the planet Earth does not seek greater truth beyond conditioned contemporary dogma of belief and disbelief. Truth is cosmic, but religion cannot handle it. Truth is metaphysical, but science cannot accept it. Truth is revelation, but government is constantly covering up its wrong doing, its corruption and incompetence, its bad decision-making. All throughout normal society is this collusion against greater truth, this mutually reinforcing idle chatter without serious inquiry, this anti-ontological conspiracy. The self-enclosed social self keeps itself oblivious to the great cosmic and metaphysical issues. When the social self, the member of society, is not talking to other social selves about various superficial nothings, it is just blanking out and staring stupidly into space or rushing about with that pressured, unhappy look on the face.

The spirit of inquiry, the search for greater truth beyond religion and science, the profound seriousness of doing real thinking, philosophy and ontology – these are almost totally lacking in humanity. Humanity is therefore subhuman from lack of genuine intelligence. The vast majority are not evolving; they do not have a viable learning process; they are stuck in first paradigm; they automatically reject any emergent facts or realities that do not fit their brain dead cognitive pattern of belief and disbelief. They watch too much television.

This very article, this particular website, is unpopular for all the wrong reasons. Greater truth is a problem in the sociology of knowledge. Any rare individual who is doing real thinking, metaphysical exploration and cosmic learning has experienced the peculiar isolation that comes with having to get along in daily life without meaningful dialogue or shared real inquiry. The people in one’s life are pre-philosophical, pre-inquiry, pre-evolutionary, pre-learning. They just haven’t got it in them. They are helpless victims of collective hypnosis. Yet most of them imagine they “think for themselves” because they avoid questioning a real thinker when they encounter one. Scientists and professional people, for instance, imagine they are quite brilliantly intelligent, though in actual fact they are rather arrogant and limited in their so-called “thinking”. The same thing is true of management consultants with their self-selected positions as experts on human learning in both individuals and groups. Business leaders in particular are often the most pseudo-philosophical representatives of learning disabilities on the planet. We cannot give to them what they believe they have already got. They, along with the political leaders, are wrecking the planet with their proud stupidities, but they refuse to see obvious things. This refusal has all the earmarks of cognitive dissonance. Most of them do not even know what that term means. It is all part of the anti-ontological conspiracy that pervades humanity as an unconscious collusion, a zombie jamboree.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YF2JcpbY35M/T4uBsBHnvJI/AAAAAAAACPY/g5UsAH8ZeS8/s1600/When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View-_Cover.jpg

Truth is greater than man. Truth is beyond social acceptance. Truth is maladjusted and cannot fit into the massively dumb patterns of ordinary relationships and activities. Greater truth is an unheeded voice in the desert, a superhuman entity of the Unknown who no one on Earth wants to meet. Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another. How can there be learning when learning is itself an undiscussible surrounded by self-protective defensive routines?

A lack of self-starting initiative in both philosophy and something beyond philosophy like Zen, is the other side of a self-inhibiting willful ignorance, a refusal to learn. Those who find the energy or spirit of inquiry mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible, secretly want it mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible. Cultivating confusion about all this is the easy method of remaining confused. There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb. People do not inquire beyond their knowledge because they do not want to have any disturbing shift in their knowledge pattern. The cognitive system is calm and stable through avoiding any disturbing new truth. When the juice of information is running in the same old grooves and ruts, the boring member of society can feel confident, sociable and witty. The protective shield of confusion requires being too busy to think beyond the current pattern of consensus reality. The slight learning that will take place will come only from shock, but humanity drifts into catastrophe more easily than it learns from the shocking aftermath. Lack of ontological initiative is deadly, invariably fatal, but most people do not want to ask advice from their inevitable death. It is always easier to be “interested” in philosophy and metaphysics than to develop originary ontological initiative. Many books on philosophy, Zen and far-out subjects can be read at one’s convenience as a noble avoidance of real thinking and meditation. Adding to one’s existing knowledge pattern is not shifting it, not learning, not full cycles of deconstruction and reconstruction, not genuine exploration of the Unknown, not merging with the Unknowable.

The lack of initiative in consciousness, the deliberate suppression of energetic awakening, is the fundamental tragedy of ordinary human existence. Without the spirit of inquiry (which means daily drifting in an unmagical life) the average human being is committing spiritual suicide. Any real thinker who is awake to all this will have to directly witness this ugly problem in his or her personal relationships. The stupid stare of heedlessness becomes a heavily familiar sight, an ever-present heaviness of the psychic atmosphere. It becomes tempting to deny one’s human needs if it would liberate oneself from the company of self-enclosed, thoughtless and deliberately confused idiots who cannot understand why one is so seriously provocative about philosophical and evolutionary issues. This is why one of the principles of the Sufi Way is solitude-in-company. It is because the companions are not going to be inquiring, thinking and learning. They are going to remain stuck in their self-enclosed head trips and their shallow talk when one is not around. They are going to stonewall any real thinker/explorer in their company, even if they are emotionally attached to the physical body and personality of such a real human being. The common anti-ontological conspiracy becomes the unconscious psychological torturing of anyone who has begun to awaken and exercise genuine intelligence. Therefore, it requires an immense psychological strength to exercise personal philosophical and spiritual initiative on the-planet-of-the-apes we call Earth. One becomes a local alien like The Man Who Fell To Earth.

Truth is greater than man, so it becomes a long, lonely and difficult road for an authentic human being who is in the world but not of the world. The sociology of knowledge is a misnomer. The sociology of ignorance is a more clear perspective. The psychological pressures that come with the awakening of genuine inquiry into greater truth are indeed daunting. The loss of normalcy can become a prolonged personal devastation requiring extraordinary strategies for personal survival. Many of the teachings of the New Seer, Juan Matus, as given to Carlos Castaneda, were in and around this problem. The warrior-traveler, the explorer of the extraordinary unknown, will have to deal with terrible tensions in all the necessary ordinary relationships with the mentally blind and dull, the neurotic and shallow, the silly and proud. People can be emotional or nasty, but they are incapable of learning.

In a world where a university education is false and for the most part useless, it is difficult to find an alternative route up Mount Analogue. The university student needs an inquiry into greater realities that his or her professors cannot handle. To keep alive real learning while simultaneously having to accumulate false learning is no easy task. One lives the life of a cognitive double agent. One has to be convincingly post-modern and skeptical to avoid being socially martyred over real metaphysics. This is because Truth is going to remain greater than man, which will inevitably cause pain in your personal relationships. Hello dianna. Thank you for the essay. I, myself have pondered this question for a long time, i still do. Through my own experience I still feel that truth is LOVE! That is unconditional Love! Love or truth is so difficult to define. Languge is so weak, but to me Feeling. not emotion, seems more accurate. I have experienced unconditional Love of all for a year or so in time, and I always wish to be in that state again. I will not try to describe the state, because i can't, not accurately, suffice to say....it was total bliss. The joining of male and female was an essential part of it. Since then the analytical/logical mode has returned, but the Love has never deserted me. Again I thank you for this!

[Milneman]

Unpacking: My P.O.V.
your mileage may vary!

I never welch on a promise unless it can't be helped.

Paragraph One

The average man or woman on the planet Earth does not seek greater truth beyond conditioned contemporary dogma of belief and disbelief. Truth is cosmic, but religion cannot handle it. Truth is metaphysical, but science cannot accept it. Truth is revelation, but government is constantly covering up its wrong doing, its corruption and incompetence, its bad decision-making. All throughout normal society is this collusion against greater truth, this mutually reinforcing idle chatter without serious inquiry, this anti-ontological conspiracy. The self-enclosed social self keeps itself oblivious to the great cosmic and metaphysical issues. When the social self, the member of society, is not talking to other social selves about various superficial nothings, it is just blanking out and staring stupidly into space or rushing about with that pressured, unhappy look on the face.


Philosophers will always agree; define your terms. As Aristotle and Plato suggested, undefined terms can create dangerous situations. So, from this paragraph, how do we define Truth?

Truth is an ever-present "cosmic" idea that is cosmic, metaphysical, revelational, and because of social conditioning and societal values, most people don't understand it, or care to understand it. The author suggests, I believe, that society in fact is trying to destroy what truth really is. But I don't see a definition of what truth is. And that's dangerous. (I wonder sometimes....is the reason that people avoid providing clear definitions to things because they don't know what they mean, or because they assume everyone will know what they're talking about? If the latter is the case, that's a bad move.)

Paragraph Two

The spirit of inquiry, the search for greater truth beyond religion and science, the profound seriousness of doing real thinking, philosophy and ontology – these are almost totally lacking in humanity. Humanity is therefore subhuman from lack of genuine intelligence. The vast majority are not evolving; they do not have a viable learning process; they are stuck in first paradigm; they automatically reject any emergent facts or realities that do not fit their brain dead cognitive pattern of belief and disbelief. They watch too much television.

We're subhuman because we don't want to question. And because we're not questioning, we're not evolving.

(I disagree with this point, and want to offer an alternative:

I believe that we are mistaken if we believe we are always evolving into something better. Natural selection, in fact, points out many dead-ends. And we should consider the reality that humanity, in fact, may be an evolutionary dead end that will simply disappear if and when it hits a wall.)

Paragraph Three

This very article, this particular website, is unpopular for all the wrong reasons. Greater truth is a problem in the sociology of knowledge. Any rare individual who is doing real thinking, metaphysical exploration and cosmic learning has experienced the peculiar isolation that comes with having to get along in daily life without meaningful dialogue or shared real inquiry. The people in one’s life are pre-philosophical, pre-inquiry, pre-evolutionary, pre-learning. They just haven’t got it in them. They are helpless victims of collective hypnosis. Yet most of them imagine they “think for themselves” because they avoid questioning a real thinker when they encounter one. Scientists and professional people, for instance, imagine they are quite brilliantly intelligent, though in actual fact they are rather arrogant and limited in their so-called “thinking”. The same thing is true of management consultants with their self-selected positions as experts on human learning in both individuals and groups. Business leaders in particular are often the most pseudo-philosophical representatives of learning disabilities on the planet. We cannot give to them what they believe they have already got. They, along with the political leaders, are wrecking the planet with their proud stupidities, but they refuse to see obvious things. This refusal has all the earmarks of cognitive dissonance. Most of them do not even know what that term means. It is all part of the anti-ontological conspiracy that pervades humanity as an unconscious collusion, a zombie jamboree.

I won't disagree--I will however say this. When I got to this paragraph I detected/realized an emotional response by the author to some statement that was made. Any time a person makes a purely emotional response, they're likely to be making mistakes in their reasoning. We have still not defined truth. What we have done, if we read correctly, is come to the realization this particular individual has a certain idea of what "truth" is, has found certain individuals who disagree using what I would suspect are philosophical reasoning, probably in the same line as the author him/herself is, and thus end up with the partly right conclusion that this is "all part of the anti-ontological conspiracy that pervades humanity as an unconscious collusion, a zombie jamboree."

I would make this very, very frightening (to some) suggestion. I would suggest that the collusion is done in full consciousness. This isn't a popular belief because nobody wants to be a victim consciously: we're ok with getting the benefits of victimhood, with laying blame, but nobody ever says it out in the open. It seems to be easier, or part of the collusion, to do it in between the lines.

Paragraph Four

Truth is greater than man. Truth is beyond social acceptance. Truth is maladjusted and cannot fit into the massively dumb patterns of ordinary relationships and activities. Greater truth is an unheeded voice in the desert, a superhuman entity of the Unknown who no one on Earth wants to meet. Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another. How can there be learning when learning is itself an undiscussible surrounded by self-protective defensive routines?

No, I disagree. Truth is within every man (and I assume woman). It is not truth that is maladjusted, it is man. Greater truth is a voice in the desert, a superhuman entity of the Known who no one on Earth wants to acknowledge knowing intimately. Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another because bringing it up to one anther would dissolve the social contracts that exist between each other. How can there be learning when learning is itself an undiscussable (I hope I spelt that correctly...I notice it wasn't in the original article) surrounded by self-protective defensive routines?

This is how. You replace the self-destructive protective defensive routines with routines which are self-constructive. How? We all know how. When you have to do something you know is right, but you don't want to do it because the consequences may cause you discomfort, do it anyway.

Paragraph Five

A lack of self-starting initiative in both philosophy and something beyond philosophy like Zen, is the other side of a self-inhibiting willful ignorance, a refusal to learn. Those who find the energy or spirit of inquiry mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible, secretly want it mysterious, perplexing or inaccessible. Cultivating confusion about all this is the easy method of remaining confused. There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb. People do not inquire beyond their knowledge because they do not want to have any disturbing shift in their knowledge pattern. The cognitive system is calm and stable through avoiding any disturbing new truth. When the juice of information is running in the same old grooves and ruts, the boring member of society can feel confident, sociable and witty. The protective shield of confusion requires being too busy to think beyond the current pattern of consensus reality. The slight learning that will take place will come only from shock, but humanity drifts into catastrophe more easily than it learns from the shocking aftermath. Lack of ontological initiative is deadly, invariably fatal, but most people do not want to ask advice from their inevitable death. It is always easier to be “interested” in philosophy and metaphysics than to develop originary ontological initiative. Many books on philosophy, Zen and far-out subjects can be read at one’s convenience as a noble avoidance of real thinking and meditation. Adding to one’s existing knowledge pattern is not shifting it, not learning, not full cycles of deconstruction and reconstruction, not genuine exploration of the Unknown, not merging with the Unknowable.

Cultivating confusion about all this is the easy method of remaining confused. There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb...or playing smart....or just plain "playing.

Adding to one’s existing knowledge pattern is not shifting it, not learning, not full cycles of deconstruction and reconstruction, not genuine exploration of the Unknown, not merging with the Unknowable.

How does the author "know" this? By this logic, and because the term "truth" has not been defined, there's a problem here in the argument. Namely, what authority does the author have to say this when all truth, especially the truth he/she speaks of, is subject to the same criteria he/she is discussing in this paragraph? Dianna, you see the problem that not defining terms creates? I get what he's saying but I get it because of my comprehension of what truth is. And unfortunately, that also leads me to wonder if the author him/herself clearly understands what they're talking about, or if they're creating a straw man in defense of an argument I've not been privy to see.

Paragraph Six

The lack of initiative in consciousness, the deliberate suppression of energetic awakening, is the fundamental tragedy of ordinary human existence. Without the spirit of inquiry (which means daily drifting in an unmagical life) the average human being is committing spiritual suicide. Any real thinker who is awake to all this will have to directly witness this ugly problem in his or her personal relationships. The stupid stare of heedlessness becomes a heavily familiar sight, an ever-present heaviness of the psychic atmosphere. It becomes tempting to deny one’s human needs if it would liberate oneself from the company of self-enclosed, thoughtless and deliberately confused idiots who cannot understand why one is so seriously provocative about philosophical and evolutionary issues. This is why one of the principles of the Sufi Way is solitude-in-company. It is because the companions are not going to be inquiring, thinking and learning. They are going to remain stuck in their self-enclosed head trips and their shallow talk when one is not around. They are going to stonewall any real thinker/explorer in their company, even if they are emotionally attached to the physical body and personality of such a real human being. The common anti-ontological conspiracy becomes the unconscious psychological torturing of anyone who has begun to awaken and exercise genuine intelligence. Therefore, it requires an immense psychological strength to exercise personal philosophical and spiritual initiative on the-planet-of-the-apes we call Earth. One becomes a local alien like The Man Who Fell To Earth.

Well that's hopeful isn't it? :p Therefore, it requires an immense psychological strength to exercise personal philosophical and spiritual initiative on the-planet-of-the-apes we call Earth. One becomes a local alien like The Man Who Fell To Earth. What if I told you it was simple as practicing personal honesty, starting with examining every belief we have, every value we have, every nature of every relationship we have, no matter how apparently earth shattering it may be until we simply reach the end of our excuses and can admit to ourselves that the primary reason we're in such a mess personally, in community, and globally boils down to five words:

"....because I don't want to."

Paragraph Seven

In a world where a university education is false and for the most part useless, it is difficult to find an alternative route up Mount Analogue. The university student needs an inquiry into greater realities that his or her professors cannot handle. To keep alive real learning while simultaneously having to accumulate false learning is no easy task. One lives the life of a cognitive double agent. One has to be convincingly post-modern and skeptical to avoid being socially martyred over real metaphysics. This is because Truth is going to remain greater than man, which will inevitably cause pain in your personal relationships.

As I'm a new university student, I'd like to agree with this paragraph. But I could only do it if I believed my education was a right. It's not. It's a privilege. The problem with skepticism, as I've said before, is it is self referentially absurd. Truth doesn't cause pain because it is truth. Truth causes pain because it runs contrary to our world views...which means our world views are based on lies.

So how does one define truth? Since it hasn't been really clearly defined in this article.

I believe Truth (capital T Truth) exists innately within each and every human being as a basic idea. It exists as clearly as our understanding that our own minds exist, as basic as our belief that other minds exist.

I could go on but Dianna, my fingers are aching. lol I need coffee and a piece of toast. :)

[Kristin]

LOL, Milneman has been taking his vitamins today. ;)

[dianna]

Milneman, very much enjoyed reading your thoughts … highlights for me:



Any time a person makes a purely emotional response, they're likely to be making mistakes in their reasoning.



Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another because bringing it up to one anther would dissolve the social contracts that exist between each other.


There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb...or playing smart....or just plain "playing.


And, LOL

I need coffee and a piece of toast.

I suspect, in the end the "truth" will never be defined by using "language" anyway ...

[Nasu]

Great posts and subsequent enquiries. For my part, in my experience and opinion, there is NO TRUTH.

Unless we see or experience something first hand, there is no truth. Truth is subjective at best. When we receive a knowledge or truth via someone else or through communications of some sort, we also receive their bias. And so it is that all truth or knowledge NOT personally experienced, it is tainted with the moods and motivations of the messenger.

Furthermore, any so called truth gained by us through our own personal experience is also tainted by our nurture or nature, or both. The more we know the more we realise how little we know, perhaps the potential is there, but it is my belief that we have not the cognitive capacity to understand it all, if it were presented to us in an understandable way.. We are like children, even the oldest in our respective tribes, children remembering stories from previous generations of children, or we are amazed at our childlike revelations through our own experiences. With the greatest respect to all of us. There is NO TRUTH.

The greatest minds have accepted this TRUTH, will you???.... Truth... N

[Milneman]

Milneman, very much enjoyed reading your thoughts … highlights for me:



Any time a person makes a purely emotional response, they're likely to be making mistakes in their reasoning.



Greater truth cannot come to those who never bring up the possibility of it to one another because bringing it up to one anther would dissolve the social contracts that exist between each other.


There is no better way to avoid learning than through maintaining a posture of confusion, of playing dumb...or playing smart....or just plain "playing.


And, LOL

I need coffee and a piece of toast.

I suspect, in the end the "truth" will never be defined by using "language" anyway ...

Aw sis. hehe You know something? I've come to terms that we're reaching a point in philosophy where a lot of people are talking about how the only thing left for us philosophers is to rationalize the meaning of language.

You know what I say to that?

WHAT A LOAD OF BLOODY BULLOX! ;)

Y'all didn't have any relative experience of that last sentence didja? ;)

What I love the most about Avalon I'm finding is it's another amazing way for us to take our brains our for a walk around the park. Believe you me love! Unpacking that article was hard work! And I could and probably should unpack more! First I have to find a bitta cake...mmmm....cake.... ;)

[Milneman]

Nasu, my dear handsome yoda-licious Nasa,


Great posts and subsequent enquiries. For my part, in my experience and opinion, there is NO TRUTH.

Unless we see or experience something first hand, there is no truth. Truth is subjective at best. When we receive a knowledge or truth via someone else or through communications of some sort, we also receive their bias. And so it is that all truth or knowledge NOT personally experienced, it is tainted with the moods and motivations of the messenger.

Furthermore, any so called truth gained by us through our own personal experience is also tainted by our nurture or nature, or both. The more we know the more we realise how little we know, perhaps the potential is there, but it is my belief that we have not the cognitive capacity to understand it all, if it were presented to us in an understandable way.. We are like children, even the oldest in our respective tribes, children remembering stories from previous generations of children, or we are amazed at our childlike revelations through our own experiences. With the greatest respect to all of us. There is NO TRUTH.

The greatest minds have accepted this TRUTH, will you???.... Truth... N

IF that is indeed one truth, that there is NO truth, then there must be at least the concession that ONE truth exists. And if ONE truth can exist, then others surely can exist.

For example: does your mind exist? If not, then how did you come to the conclusion that NO truth exists? The existence of your mind must surely be another truth...woops...there's two truths.

Oh no, there's another truth: my mind must exist. I must have rational reasons to believe my mind exists. :D Wanna know what it is? I believe it's a basic belief, like mathematical principles. And that means it's safe for me to assume that your mind exists too!

ohoh...yet another truth.

This is the problem with this kind of philosophy, which isn't to say that my philosophy doesn't have holes in it too: it does! :)

Can we break through the conditioning of multiple generations of belief? Absolutely we can. I did.

OHOH!

Or another way to put it,

If you're pleased to accept Kant's theory of the meaning of things you've got two problems to explain the he didn't: why is it that we all share the exact same number and same qualities of the categorical imperative? And, more interestingly, how is it that Kant can know so much about what's behind the wall of antinome? In other words: how is it we know so much about what we can never know?

OH dammit. Coffee....where for art tho? :)

*brain fart at the drip perk*

NO OTHER truths exist. That'd be another truth. bwaha. :D