Is absolute Truth knowable ?

[kavaris]

 

[kavaris]

I think its relevant to mention here about the periods of history where truth (aletheia, al 'theeya or al 'thaeeya) lived alongside the pursuit of harmonic life, and the comprehension of a musical kosmos; There was a belief in whats called aonic life, confusingly dubbed eternal life. However if we go back to the Greek, *aonic wasnt seen as something eternal. The Greeks had antithetical terms that denoted something eternal from the impermanent, temporary.

Aeon was the child of Chronos, cronus or kronos ~ the term Aonic is roughly 4,000 years older than our modern reinterpretation. Aonic life ~4,000 years ago was the devotion under Chronos or Saturn, existing outside of time: αιϝών ("ai-won", as that /ϝ/ is [w] ... ) is the archaic form for vital force.

So anytime someone says Aonic life, its really Saturnian life, the age or initiation of Chronos ~towards a vital life. So its not eternal in that way, its Aonic life.

To cont., its the Satre god in Etruscan, Ianuarus now for January or Janus. Aonic is also dual in its gender, as its between realms, outside of time, related to "to comprehend". It is unrecognizable, for its going back to Mycenaean Greek.

Thats the antithetical, comprehension of eternal. Plato's eternal form is more of a term to ground the meaning of form itself. Thats a different period where the meanings had already split, where Philosophy was the attempt to save the craft of the internal comprehension and continued pursuit of truth.

p.s., you can ask the question from an antipodal direction: "is the act of knowing, truthful? Can i know? What does it mean to know/understand (ἐπίσταμαι)" -> which is where i am getting this Istemi: pointer, link -> στην-*, in the,   εἰς-*, into, towards; ἐπι-*, upon, over, at, toward;   ἵστημι, to stand, to set, to place, or something more akin to a direction; ενδιάμεσος, intermediate, link or in-between ; ἐπίσταμαι, to know/insist, to understand.

And I shouldve mentioned as well, something that's antithetical isnt opposite, or not how i use it. For its more like, *two things of a common source that act to oppose each other~if you imagine a web of points zigzagging from one another, its like that

Edited May 5 by kavaris

[Hasson_Miah]

@kavaris it must be. Because why can never end and when it does that will be absolute truth.

[Joseph Maynor]

This raises the issue of Epistemology.  What is it to know?  Who is the knower, and what are the criteria for knowing?  If Truth can be known, then that naturally raises the issue of Epistemology.  But can the conclusion to this philosophical issue resolve Truth in the spiritual sense? 

[gengar]

Yes, absolutely

[Zigzag Idiot]

As most always, I head for the Ridhwan School glossary and take a look there. I picked this one book excerpt from around 20 listed under the category of Ultimate Truth.

Hope you enjoy it.

Whatever We Say About Ultimate Truth Will Not Exhaust It

Our view is not that we cannot say anything about the ultimate truth, but rather that whatever we say, regardless of how accurate it may be, will not exhaust it. It cannot be described, not because no description can be found, but because whatever description we find will fail to give it justice. In fact, mystical poets are always describing it, but all the poetry possible is a paltry limitation of what it is. In other words, the absolute truth is indeterminable because of its inexhaustibility. This does not contradict the view of prasangika madhyamaka; rather, it complements it. It does not contradict it because the inexhaustibility of the absolute truth is a consequence of its utter simplicity, which is the essence of Nagarjuna’s view. Simplicity and inexhaustibility are the two paradoxical poles of this ultimate truth, just like emptiness and fullness. 

The Point of Existence, pg. 564

[Joseph Maynor]

Part of the problem here is assuming thinking is conceptualizing.  I broaden thinking to creating, especially artistic creating.  So when we say: Can the Absolute can be known?  This doesn't mean it has to be known conceptually.  It is thought directly -- not conceptually.  The Creator can recognize itself without concepts.  This is "Self-Realization", but way beyond where most people think the scope of this word is because they develop a concept of The Absolute, and then indefinitely identify with that meaning.  Their concept of Self-Realization comes from Indian Philosophy not from direct experience.

[LastThursday]

There is a kind of platonic absolute truth, but there is also empirical absolute truth. 

The platonic kind is a truth that stands no matter what you believe to be true. It's a kind of faith based truth. It's absolute because it is always in play. May be to some the existence of God is an absolute truth.

The empirical kind is a truth that requires knowledge or perception. For example I know I'm conscious. What makes empirical truth absolute is a temporal component: the knowledge I have of the truth never changes over time, I am always conscious and by extension I always will be.

I find neither satisfactory, and so find the idea of "absolute" truth suspect. Both types require some sort of faith.

Edited 11 hours ago by LastThursday
typo

[Yimpa]

Yes it is knowable. You can even know that Rupert Spira is imaginary. How do I know this? That is a mystery.

[Joseph Maynor]

9 hours ago, Yimpa said:

Yes it is knowable. You can even know that Rupert Spira is imaginary. How do I know this? That is a mystery.

Rupert Spira lol.  

[kavaris]

I feel like Rupert Spira came from either a Jewish or Catholic family, or something that had like, its own monastic lifestyle, but in that sentiment... i also feel like these monastic monk-esque monasteries were so prevalent, that you had local monastery / apothecary's everywhere tending to farms or whatever else, making the world more like a monk world, regardless of it being christian, just apothecary monks for the sake of everywhere. Its just compatible w/ being farmers and things like this...

[kavaris]

... It also reminds me, i had a dream, whereby, within the dream, there was several flashes, and i seen a flash of Leo G.'s family history, and i was like "Oh... Thats surpising, i wasnt expecting that.... Oh...Thats surprising i was expecting that..." ~I kept seeing things that were surprising, that i wasnt expecting, but that were nevertheless familiar'y/relatable.