Absolute Truth Contradiction (?)

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe so to understand @Sincerity you might have to ask him for his definition. Before slapping yours on him.

13 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Yo 🫠🫠🫠🫠

[Sincerity]

7 hours ago, Joshe said:

People mistake the practice of channeling awareness for expanding.

Thanks for your perspective. What practices expand awareness, according to you? Does self-inquiry channel or expand awareness?

Where did you get the distinction from? Have you validated it in experience?

In my experience, focused contemplation on eg. „what am I?” leads to expanded awareness. After I shift in state (having focused for some time), I can let loose and bask in the glory of self-recognition (expanded awareness). Or go deeper.

Edited 11 hours ago by Sincerity

[Ziran]

2 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

^^ Paradox ^^

If this is true, then:

Nobody truly knows... or not.  It's a nonsensical statement.

[theleelajoker]

2 hours ago, Ziran said:

^^ Paradox ^^

If this is true, then:

Nobody truly knows... or not.  It's a nonsensical statement.

You mean: How can he know that no one knows?

How can he say that nobody can make a claim such as "no individual person can make big metaphysical claims about enlightenment" while as an individual, he makes an generalized statement about others?

Hehe yes that's a valid question 😎

And the answer is simple: others say "it's like this and that". They pretend to have "facts". I have subjective experiences and opinions.

And my opinion: The maximum you can do is say "my experience is....XYZ" and that's about it. Fuck the rest you're just pretending to know to gain some false safety and security in this fluid world  that you're continuously co-creating  and changing 🌎 

Edited 7 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

And that's where you're wrong.

[Ziran]

12 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

You mean: How can he know that no one knows?

 It's essentially the "liar's paradox".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

If nobody knows, literally nobody, then the author of the assertion is included and is equally clueless.

If the author of the assertion is equally clueless, then the assertion is not an assertion.  It's a coin-toss in disguise.

When an assertion unconditionally asserts unknowing, the assertion is inverted into unconditional ambiguity. 

[Ricard_Perez]

Yeah I see the tension you’re noticing there.

What I’d say to you is the contradiction mostly comes from mixing two different layers of the teaching. Realization of absolute truth doesn’t suddenly turn the human character into a magical god-avatar with powers. The body-mind still functions according to its conditioning, biology, and circumstances. So enlightenment doesn’t mean you suddenly bend reality or spawn miracles on command. But what does tend to shift is identification. When the sense of being a separate self relaxes, the motivations built on lack, fear, and manipulation often weaken naturally. Not because a rule says they must, but because the psychological structure that fed them isn’t being taken as seriously anymore. That’s why compassion or honesty often deepen, they don’t come from moral obligation but from less separation.

The important part for you to see is that enlightenment isn’t about gaining abilities, it’s about seeing through the one who was trying to gain something in the first place. Powers, purification, mystical experiences, all of those are still things appearing within consciousness. Some people might have unusual capacities, most won’t, but none of that is really the point of the realization itself. The deeper shift is simply recognizing what you are prior to the character and its desires. From there the character may still have tendencies, but they’re no longer the center of identity. I appreciate the depth of your question, you’re really thinking carefully about these ideas 😊🙏

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Ziran said:

It's a nonsensical statement.

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible  and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

And that's where you're wrong.

Amazing how you managed to convince me that I'm wrong.

So eloquently, so sharp and precise, so on point with your undeniable arguments.

Can't believe how impressive that was. I definitely stay corrected. 

You are clearly a special little thing, nobody else knows but with this post you showed me that YOU DEFINITELY KNOW what's going on. 

Edited 5 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Ziran]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Its not though, the claim is perfectly intelligible  and the claim can be true irrespective of how justified the author is who asserts the claim.

" ... can be true ... " 

Maybe it was intended to be written this way?  Idk

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Ziran

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, theleelajoker said:

Amazing how you managed to convince me that I'm wrong.

You should know by now that I'm not in the business of convincing people of things.

I point out self-deception. It is your responsibility to follow up on that and correct yourself. If you care about truth.

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You should know by now that I'm not in the business of convincing people of things.

I point out self-deception. It is your responsibility to follow up on that and correct yourself. If you care about truth.

Incredible way of doing things. Holy shit, I'm impressed. Let's see what I can learn here from you.

Start with making claims. Big claims that show how you are seemingly superior.

Then avoid clarifying and / or making arguments. Then tell others what they should know. Aha, here the first shift of responsibility to others and avoiding one's own. Awesome.

"Not in business of convincing people", yes? So if I go through your quotes, blogs, forum I would not find you trying to convince people? You only teach by describing, and you don't want to convince people of anything, never? Not even convincing then with marketing and your webpage about stuff like life purpose, and your skills, methods, etc? 

Ok, so only self deception, yes yes no convincing only self deception..of others, of course.

And then shifting the responsibility from oneself to others by making a generalized and meaningless statement that does nothing but create an artificial identity of ehm..."caring about truth" that you build your personality and self-value around.

Because if other's have a different opinion than you, then they are - OF COURSE - not interested in truth or they are not conscious enough (of course you're not only the most conscious, you are also the one who can judge others!) or a combination of both.

Ok, so how do I counter? Yes I know! Leo, you're right - I don't care about truth enough. I care about TRUTH! No, no even better - ABSOLUT TRUTH. Haha, yeah, and if you can't see that's what, then you are not conscious enough, you're not interested enough in ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Yes, you're both, not conscious enough, not interested enough in ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and you're full of self deception that I am only pointing out haha and...and you should know this by now.

So how did I do? Learning your way framing and manipulation well? I'm kind proud of myself, because I'm the best and the greatest and the smartest and the only one that cares about truth....

Edited 2 hours ago by theleelajoker

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Ziran said:

Maybe it was intended to be written this way?  Idk

No, thats fair that you interpreted in a different way.

The reason why I pushed back is because its different from the liar paradox in that you cant derive a contradiction from the claim , but when it comes to the liar's paradox - you can derive a contradiction.

And if you take contradictions to be unintelligible ( in the sense that they cant be true), then you wont have the same issue in this specific case, because there isn't any trivial contradiciton that can be derived from that statement.

[Eskilon]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

The reason why I pushed back is because its different from the liar paradox in that you cant derive a contradiction from the claim , but when it comes to the liar's paradox - you can derive a contradiction.

How can "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT." not be a liar paradox? It is literally the same thing. And also, how can you not derive a contradiction from this? It is a contradiction precisely because its a liar paradox. You cannot remove the person talking about it and at the same time say "Nobody". The person talking must be included in the "nobody" and therefore it is a liar paradox.

[Monomachus]

4 hours ago, Ricard_Perez said:

Yeah I see the tension you’re noticing there.

What I’d say to you is the contradiction mostly comes from mixing two different layers of the teaching. Realization of absolute truth doesn’t suddenly turn the human character into a magical god-avatar with powers. The body-mind still functions according to its conditioning, biology, and circumstances. So enlightenment doesn’t mean you suddenly bend reality or spawn miracles on command. But what does tend to shift is identification. When the sense of being a separate self relaxes, the motivations built on lack, fear, and manipulation often weaken naturally. Not because a rule says they must, but because the psychological structure that fed them isn’t being taken as seriously anymore. That’s why compassion or honesty often deepen, they don’t come from moral obligation but from less separation.

The important part for you to see is that enlightenment isn’t about gaining abilities, it’s about seeing through the one who was trying to gain something in the first place. Powers, purification, mystical experiences, all of those are still things appearing within consciousness. Some people might have unusual capacities, most won’t, but none of that is really the point of the realization itself. The deeper shift is simply recognizing what you are prior to the character and its desires. From there the character may still have tendencies, but they’re no longer the center of identity. I appreciate the depth of your question, you’re really thinking carefully about these ideas 😊🙏

An excellent summation

[theleelajoker]

7 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

How can "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT." not be a liar paradox? It is literally the same thing. And also, how can you not derive a contradiction from this? It is a contradiction precisely because its a liar paradox. You cannot remove the person talking about it and at the same time say "Nobody". The person talking must be included in the "nobody" and therefore it is a liar paradox.

Seriously? 

That's what you focus on?🤣🤣🤣

What about context, my next sentence:

Ignoring that for what reason?

Quote

All we can do is exchange and make sense of our subjective POVs

I even pointed that out a second time in another post lol 

Edited 1 hour ago by theleelajoker

[Eskilon]

1 minute ago, theleelajoker said:

What about context, my next sentence:

You next sentence still mean nobody knows shit. Everbody is just exchanging their opinions as far as you're concerned.

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

The person talking must be included in the "nobody" and therefore it is a liar paradox.

No.

You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidently utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true.

 

And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it , if taken to be true and you can't. 

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[Eskilon]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidently utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true.

Yes, and this is included in that right, how do you know what you just wrote is true or not?

Given that context nobody means nobody, means all, no exception. Unless you wanna change the meaning of words lol.

Edited 1 hour ago by Eskilon

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

how do you know what you just wrote is true or not?

How is that relevant to what I just wrote there?

You understand that if we go with the idea that I knew what I was talking about there , that doesnt get you to a contradiction, that would just render the proposition false.

You wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew