Ziran

" ... While I like the statement and think I agree in total with it on one level, it still does not encompass the experience of living , the illusionary side of it all, nor the totality of it all. " The experience of living, the illusory side of it, is routinely described as "Awe".

Not mine. "Starting around 1940, university English professor S. I. Hayakawa (1906–1992), speech professor Wendell Johnson, speech professor Irving J. Lee, and others assembled elements of general semantics into a package suitable for incorporation into mainstream communications curricula. The Institute of General Semantics, which Korzybski and co-workers founded in 1938 continues today. General semantics as a movement has waned considerably since the 1950s, although many of its ideas live on in other movements, such as media literacy,[6] neuro-linguistic programming and rational emotive behavior therapy. Title of thread "no true nature of reality". I have been giving examples of objective truths which defeats the assertion. It's not true, and I've proven it. You don't need to like it. Truth isn't a popularity context. That's also not true. Gottfried Leibnez defined the absolute. Consistently. Coherently. You just defined the absolute. I'm not sure if I agree with the definition. But, this happens all the time. An online, self described, expert makes a claim about reality or the absolute without realizing it while at the same claiming that "No One Can Make Such a Claim." The simple truth is, this idea about the absolute is doctrine. But on one is willing to admit it. That's fine. But if these false notions are posted on the public internet, it's good to correct them. False teachings harm people.

By repeating the same assertion and lacking a valid example. Good work.

Repeating the same assertion is preaching to yourself. Enjoy.

What I'm trying to say is: When one inclines their ear to another, and the other chooses to speak, there's an implied social inclusion of shared set of linguistic rules. Sometimes there's a mismatch. A tourist visits a foreign country. Sure. But here, in this context, distinguishing between objective and subjective truths, there is a procedure which can be followed and has a proven track record of producing **sound** conclusions. That's the process of "classical logic". It's not without faults and limits, but for something like this, answering the question: "Are there any objective truths?" classical logic is ideal. Because. The word choice of the question is borrowing from classical logic. The definition of an objective truth comes from this school of thought. Therefore. it's unreasonable to exclude other aspects of this school of thought arbitrarily.

Semantics and grammar are objective. Example: "Pat is punching Sal" is completely different than "Sal is punching Pat" Agreed? When someone is so married to their own doctrine to the point where they deny that "UP" has an objective meaning... they're stuck in their own echo-chamber.

Describe tech 50 years from now. Travel? Communication / collaboration? Construction / manufacturing? Clothing? Energy / fuel? anything else? Thank you,

Your answers are in English. English has objective rules of grammar and semantics. If not, then, you and I would not be able to communicate. Using those rules, there is an objective correct way to negate a proposition. It's common to overlook this. Each english speaker thinks they are experts with the language. But, most are not. That's why there are college courses and entire textbooks on the subject.

^^ This ^^ This is the reason to adopt and include another view of reality within your awareness.

this realization will never change because it is rewarding you have suffered for this realization? If so, it's painful to consider the realization is wrong and the path and the corresponding pain was in vain.

...useful hallucinations, else our ancestors would not have consistently found water or avoided hazards like wandering off a cliff.

Yes! 100%.

There are as many paths as there are people. Even if someone's going the "wrong way" eventually they'll right themself, if they keep going. Because reality is spherical.

Zohar Prologue: Verse 7 בְּרֵאשִׁית. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַח, שְׂאוּ מָרוֹם עֵינֵיכֶם וּרְאוּ מִי בָרָא אֵלֶּה. שְׂאוּ מָרוֹם עֵינֵיכֶם. לְאָן אֲתַר, לַאֲתַר דְּכָל עַיְינִין תָּלְיָאן לֵיהּ. וּמָאן אִיהוּ, פֶּתַח עֵינַיִם. וְתַמָּן תִּנְדְּעוּן, דְּהַאי סָתִים עַתִּיקָא דְקַיְימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, בָּרָא אֵלֶּה. וּמָאן אִיהוּ, מִ"י. הַהוּא דְאִקְרֵי מִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְעֵילָּא, דְּכֹלָא קַיְּימָא בִּרְשׂוּתֵיהּ. וְעַל דְּקַיְימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, וְאִיהוּ בְּאֹרַח סָתִים וְלָא אִתְגַּלְיָא, אִקְרֵי מִ"י, דְּהָא לְעֵילָּא לֵית תַּמָּן שְׁאֵלָה. וְהַאי קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם אִקְרֵי מִ"י. "In the beginning..." Rabbi Elazar began the discussion by quoting, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who has created these things?" (Isaiah 40:26). "Lift up your eyes on high," to what place? To that place to which all eyes are turned. And who is He that created these things? He is the opening of the eyes ( or literally translated "nothing" ), And there you shall know that this concealed Ancient-One, to which a question can be applied. Who has created these? And who is He? He is called 'from the end of heaven on high,' as everything is in His domain. And since one can ask about Him, and He is concealed and not revealed, He is called "Who?", because beyond Him, one may not pose questions. Thus, the end of heaven is called 'Who?' Zohar Prologue: Verse 8 וְאִית אָחֳרָא לְתַתָּא וְאִקְרֵי מַ"ה. מַה בֵּין הַאי לְהַאי, אֶלָּא קַדְמָאָה סְתִימָאָה דְּאִקְרֵי מִ"י קַיְּימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, וְכֵיוָן דְּשָׁאַל בַּר נָשׁ וּמְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ לְאִסְתַּכְּלָא וּלְמִנְדַע מִדַּרְגָּא לְדַרְגָּא עַד סוֹף כָּל דַּרְגִּין, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטֵי תַּמָּן מַ"ה, מַה יָּדַעְתָּ, מַה אִסְתָּכַּלְתָּא, מַה פִּשְׁפַּשְׁתָּא, הָא כֹּלָא סָתִים כִּדְקַדְמֵיתָא. There is another one down below called "What?". And what is the difference between "Who" and "What"? The first one is concealed and is called "Who?". It remains a question: Once one has searched and inquired in order to understand and climb from one level to another, and has finally reached the end level of "All", he is asked: "What?" What have you learned? What have you seen? What have you attended to, since everything is still concealed and hidden as before! Zohar Prologue: Verse 10 מִ"י קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְעֵילָא, מַ"ה, קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְתַתָּא, וְדָא יָרִית יַעֲקֹב, דְּאִיהוּ מַבְרִיחַ מִן הַקָּצֶה אֶל הַקָּצֶה, מִן הַקָּצֶה קַדְמָאָה דְּאִיהוּ מִ"י, אֶל הַקָּצֶה בַּתְרָאָה דְּאִיהוּ מַ"ה, בְּגִין דְּקָאֵים בְּאֶמְצָעִיתָא. וְעַל דָּא, מִי בָּרָא אֵלֶּה. "Who?" ... the end of heaven above, "What?" ... the end of heaven below, And this is what Jacob* inherited, as he "shall reach from end to end" (Exodus 26:28). From the end above, which is "Who?", down to the lower end, which is "What?". Because he stands in the middle. And because of this, "Who" has created these! ( Isaiah 40:26 ) * Etymology of Jacob: "Forever clinging to the heel [of the foot]."

These teachings originated, in theory, from the God of Death, Yama. Naturally, the God of Death will assert that Dying is the highest virtue. https://upanishads.org.in/stories/a-dialogue-with-the-god-of-death

Patanjali, Yoga Sutra 4:15 वस्तुसाम्ये चित्तभेदात्तयोर्विभक्तः पन्थाः ॥ ४.१५ ॥ vastusāmye cittabhedāttayorvibhaktaḥ panthāḥ || 4.15 || (15) In spite of sameness of objects, on account of there being separate minds they (the object and its knowledge) follow different paths that is why they are entirely different. Source: WisdomLib.org LINK

Loosh farming, look it up.

You're not wrong... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6588195/ "Cross-sectional data also suggest that perceived social impact (the belief that one’s job is making a difference) is even more important for happiness than the prosocial desire to help." https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/07-08/volunteering-kind-acts "While it’s true that people are driven by a range of motivations, “the overwhelming majority of people truly have the capacity to care about other people and to be genuinely motivated by their welfare,” said Georgetown University psychology professor Abby Marsh, PhD, who studies highly altruistic behavior such as organ donation. “We also know that there is a really strong relationship between well-being and altruism, and that the relationship goes both ways.” Researchers are using a range of methods to study these issues. For example, Lara Aknin, PhD, distinguished professor of social psychology at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia, and colleagues have conducted numerous studies showing that people report greater happiness when they’ve spent money or given goodies to others than when they’ve kept these things for themselves. That holds for college students (Science, Vol. 319, No. 5870, 2008opens in new window); Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 119, No. 2, 2020); former inmates and at-risk youth (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 82, 2019); and poor people living in remote rural areas (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 144, No. 4, 2015). And in a study using Gallup data on 136 countries, Aknin and colleagues found that prosocial giving was strongly related to happiness in most countries, regardless of their wealth or poverty (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 4, 2013). Likewise, giving to others can ease depression, anxiety, and loneliness, finds Naomi Eisenberger, PhD, a professor of psychology at UCLA, and graduate student Maria Naclerio. In their study, the team randomized 777 people to perform self-chosen acts of kindness over two weeks toward themselves or toward others, or to go about their lives as usual (Emotion, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2026). At the end of the study, depression scores fell for people who were kind to themselves. But those who performed kind acts for others not only felt less depressed, but less anxious and lonely as well. That difference was explained by the fact that their actions helped them feel more connected to others, said Naclerio. “ And we know that feelings of connection are critical for good mental health,” she said."

You're always welcome, love. In my home or on the road. Sincererly,

Hmmm. Let's see? Maybe so? The negation of "In total, all of" is "There is not at least one of". The negation of "include" is "exclude". The negation of "and" is "not this or that". To be clear: IFF the proposition is objectively true, then its negation should be false. ?? Is the negation of the proposition false ?? Not ( In total, All of reality includes truth, fiction, and the inconceivable ) = ... ... "There is not at least one of reality which excludes truth or excludes fiction or excludes the inconceivable." ^^ It's false ^^ There are MANY examples of elements within reality which exclude truth or exclude fiction or exclude the inconceivable. Because the negation is false, in any possible world, then, the proposition is objectively true. This is a proposal, not a reason to beleive. See above? Is there a fault in my reasoning?

IMO, examples are needed: Contradiction: A married-bachelor Paradox: bitter-sweet chocolate A contradiction is intuitive: the union of opposing forces is false. A paradox is counter-intuitive: the union of opposing forces is true. Yup If it's invalid, then it's a contradiction. If it's valid, then it's a paradox. Yes. Within all of reality, the paradox is a union of paradox and contradiction. Maybe what you're observing is: This union, this paradox, is valid, always and forever?

It's objectively true. Can you describe any conditions which render the statement untrue? Prove it. Bring a set of conditions where the following statement is untrue? "In total, All of reality includes: truth, fiction, and the inconceivable" ? Did someone tell you that everything is relative, and you accepted it without testing ?

I beg to differ. Which renders it true or not. There are at least a few things that can be said about reality. "In total, All of reality includes: truth, fiction, and the inconceivable" It's not true? Show me?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plot twist: they're pushing it on themselves, and we can watch from the gallery.