Why trust our direct experience?

[Gesundheit]

9 hours ago, Forestluv said:

The distinction between category A and category B is itself distinct from intention. A distinction is a distinction, regardless of how or why it was created. 

Constructions of "true map" do not erase the distinction drawn between category A and category B. 

We can create a distinction between A and B and then create a long song and dance about A and B. Yet at the end of the day, there is still a distinction between A and B. 

Only thing is that it doesn't seem like a made-up distinction to me right now. It feels absolutely true.

[Leo Gura]

19 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

No. Relativity is a child's play. What I'm saying goes deeper. I'm claiming that there's only one true set of thoughts that describe the absolute truth and therefore are true. And all other sets of thoughts are false, wrong, and delusional. One set is absolutely true because it emulates the absolute truth. The remaining sets don't represent the truth, and therefore they're not true, not absolutely nor relatively. They're necessarily false.

The actual bank robbery event is absolute truth. The thoughts describing it can be either true or false depending on whether they actually represent what happened or not. An apple is not a banana. An apple is an apple and not anything else. Again, you can get technical and dissect that statement however and as much as you want. The actual truth of the actual thing remains untouched regardless. It's just a statement that describes the truth, even if it does not capture the whole of it. Just because language and thoughts are limited does not make them irrelevant. The difference between saying that an apple is not a banana and saying that an apple is a banana is that the former statement describes less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% of reality, while the latter does not describe reality at all. The latter is 0% true.

Dude, you don't understand relativity. Please stop acting like a know-it-all.

[Gesundheit]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, you don't understand relativity. Please stop acting like a know-it-all.

I thought at least you'd add something of value.

[Harikrishnan]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I thought at least you'd add something of value.

Well now you know something. That's the value.

 

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, you don't understand relativity. Please stop acting like a know-it-all.

?

[Gesundheit]

1 hour ago, Harikrishnan said:

Well now you know something. That's the value.

?

??

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Only thing is that it doesn't seem like a made-up distinction to me right now. It feels absolutely true.

Whether it is a made-up distinction or a non-made-up distinction does not nullify the distinction. And ‘made-up” vs “non-made-up” is itself a relative distinction. It’s in the realm of distinguishing between what is imaginary and real - another relative distinction.

[Gesundheit]

5 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Whether it is a made-up distinction or a non-made-up distinction does not nullify the distinction. And ‘made-up” vs “non-made-up” is itself a relative distinction. It’s in the realm of distinguishing between what is imaginary and real - another relative distinction.

Does relative = not actual?

[Fran11]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, you don't understand relativity. Please stop acting like a know-it-all.

LOL

Harsh 

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Fran11 said:

Harsh 

And arrogant and condescending, but you'll get used to it very quickly if you disagree with his philosophy enough times.

[Javfly33]

41 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

And arrogant and condescending, but you'll get used to it very quickly if you disagree with his philosophy enough times.

Well is true in this case that you don't know what you are talking about. What is that thing about "a set of words that describe truth" sorry what? Lol. Truth is beyond language, that doesn't make any sense.

Having said that sure sometimes Leo is too harsh, although I would say in this case he just said what is true. 

[Gesundheit]

10 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Well is true in this case that you don't know what you are talking about. What is that thing about "a set of words that describe truth" sorry what? Lol. Truth is beyond language, that doesn't make any sense.

Having said that sure sometimes Leo is too harsh, although I would say in this case he just said what is true. 

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean it's nonsense. Maybe you're just being deluded. The set I'm talking about is infinitely large so don't get caught up on that.

[Javfly33]

9 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean it's nonsense. Maybe you're just being deluded. The set I'm talking about is infinitely large so don't get caught up on that.

I'm saying that because of the following phrase:

"The thoughts describing it can be either true or false depending on whether they actually represent what happened or not."

Reading this makes me think your understanding of "true" is flawed. Well, not really flawed just relative to language and meaning.

When you talk about Truth notice you are talking about Absolute Truth. Yet your trying to say that there's this set of words (relative ) of numbers (relative) in language (relative) that describe Truth (Absolute).

You could be a million years trying to describe it and you couldn't. Because relative happens in the Absolute. Relative can't grasp something Absolute.

A finger can't grasp a hand.

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Javfly33

[Fran11]

26 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't mean it's nonsense. 

We undestand. You just keep saying that because language is an useful consesus that makes it absolute truth. 

It's cristal clear you don't understand what relativity even means but there's not way to change your mind because you are close minded to the explainations everyone is providing you.

I've been closed minded and attached to my ideas too, so I understand, but try giving it a little thought.

All love.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Does relative = not actual?

relative = relative

not actual = not actual

actual vs not actual involves another distinction.

Any separation of Oneness involves relative distinctions to contrast a thing that is not another thing. Any thing has a not-that-thing for contrast. If we say that is a cup, it is relatively contrasted with all that is not-that-cup.

[Gesundheit]

31 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

I'm saying that because of the following phrase:

"The thoughts describing it can be either true or false depending on whether they actually represent what happened or not."

Reading this makes me think your understanding of "true" is flawed. Well, not really flawed just relative to language and meaning.

When you talk about Truth notice you are talking about Absolute Truth. Yet your trying to say that there's this set of words (relative ) of numbers (relative) in language (relative) that describe Truth (Absolute).

You could be a million years trying to describe it and you couldn't. Because relative happens in the Absolute. Relative can't grasp something Absolute.

A finger can't grasp a hand.

Except that it can because the finger is just another hand.

It's not just a hand and some fingers and that's it. The hand is infinite and all of its parts are infinite too. The hand has no beginning and no end, and it's indistinguishable from the fingers.

The analogy talks about an actual finger and an actual hand. Both of them are actual, and therefore absolute. To say the finger is relative, is delusion. The actual finger was never relative because it's whole by nature but the concept that there is a separate finger is relative, and there's no arguing against that. But does the relativity of the concept of separation affect the absolute nature of the finger? Or are they two irrelevant issues? And since it's relative, the concept of a separate finger is subject to trueness or falsehood. If the finger is actually separate then the absolute truth would be that it's separate. If the finger wasn't actually separate then the absolute truth would be that it's not separate. Now at this point, you can argue that what does separation mean? And where does the hand end and the finger begin? Etc..... But these are abstract questions that are of no actual validity because they don't have a context. Let's say the context is some person who had lost his right index due to certain conditions. You can easily understand what I'm saying and pointing to even though I'm using relative words basically. The essence/meaning has been shared with you. Now you may say that the trueness of the story is relative to the context. And that's precisely the point. The story is the map, and the context is the territory. Therefore there's one context that's happening, that is absolute truth. And there are both true and false stories about that context.

I hope this clears things up.

[Javfly33]

@Gesundheit I think I understand you more now what you are trying to say.

And I'm not saying that you are wrong, but

Have you ever had a mystical realization of Truth? If not it's clear to me now that we are not taking about the same Truth/Absolute and relative to this absolute.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Fran11 said:

We undestand. You just keep saying that because language is an useful consesus that makes it absolute truth. 

It's cristal clear you don't understand what relativity even means but there's not way to change your mind because you are close minded to the explainations everyone is providing you.

I've been closed minded and attached to my ideas too, so I understand, but try giving it a little thought.

All love.

I don't appreciate your projections. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me closed-minded. I am expressing my authentic thoughts and trying to see what you're saying. If I can't see it for some reasons that doesn't necessarily make me closed-minded. It just makes the communication not very helpful up to this point. Also you have to consider to be the one who's not understanding my perspective. Please don't assess my open-mindedness again.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

relative = relative

not actual = not actual

actual vs not actual involves another distinction.

Any separation of Oneness involves relative distinctions to contrast a thing that is not another thing. Any thing has a not-that-thing for contrast. If we say that is a cup, it is relatively contrasted with all that is not-that-cup.

Not that I disagree with anything said here but what are you actually trying to say exactly? We can't get very far with oneness when talking about it because what are we even talking about? What I see here is just a few meta observations that don't address what I'm asking about.

I'm asking whether or not the term relative means that the thing we're talking about is not actual. You give me meta observations on the question, not addressing the question itself, and mainly begging the same question.

You said actual vs not actual involves another distinction. And that's correct. But is there a hidden metaphysical value attributed to the term distinction? This is the question here. Are you, by saying that there is a distinction, saying that the distinction is false or not? You'll probably just give me the same answer, which is a detached observation that false and true is yet another distinction. See, this will never end. We can go meta forever.

[Fran11]

58 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I don't appreciate your projections. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me closed-minded. I am expressing my authentic thoughts and trying to see what you're saying. If I can't see it for some reasons that doesn't necessarily make me closed-minded. It just makes the communication not very helpful up to this point. Also you have to consider to be the one who's not understanding my perspective. Please don't assess my open-mindedness again.

I offered you a extremely simple and obvious example for you to get what is meant by the language not being able to express absolute truth, and instead of givinig a little thought you just dismissed saying I was being overly technical. I'm sorry but to me that's close mindnesess.

No one is denying you can say "truths" using language, but you are just refusing to consider the limitations of any symbolic system.

Edited September 1, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Not that I disagree with anything said here but what are you actually trying to say exactly?

The original statement was:

On 8/31/2020 at 9:27 AM, Gesundheit said:

I'm claiming that there's only one true set of thoughts that describe the absolute truth and therefore are true. And all other sets of thoughts are false, wrong, and delusional. 

How can a set of relative thoughts describe absolute truth and another set of relative thoughts not describe absolute truth? By this logic, absolute truth is itself relative to not-absolute-truth and a subset within something more expansive, which would include both the set of absolute truth thoughts and the set of not-absolute thoughts. I suppose we could say there is a subset of absolute within Absolute. For example, we could say that there are different aspects of infinity within Absolute Infinity. We have infinite size, infinite shape, infinite numbers, infinite space etc. - all within Absolute Infinity. Although the term "within" is not quite accurate, since there is no "outside" of Absolute Infinity.

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

We can't get very far with oneness when talking about it because what are we even talking about?

Of course. We can't take a single step to anywhere. Not much fun in that. Full deconstruction to singularity isn't very satiating to a human mind that like to construct.

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm asking whether or not the term relative means that the thing we're talking about is not actual. 

Any thing is relative to not-that-thing. So we are essentially asking "Is a thing actual?". Is a thought actual? Is a cow actual? Is the color red actual? I find this difficult to answer since it can be answered in so many different ways. Any answer I give is a partial truth that omits another partial truth. We could say it simply "IS", yet what it the substance of it's ISness? This gets into form = formless. 

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

You said actual vs not actual involves another distinction. And that's correct. But is there a hidden metaphysical value attributed to the term distinction? 

I would say there is immense metaphysical value in understanding distinctions. A mind able to deconstruct prior to the first distinction has attained a form of awakening. A mind awakened to full deconstruction to Nothing and full construction to Everything is a special mind, imo.

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Are you, by saying that there is a distinction, saying that the distinction is false or not? You'll probably just give me the same answer, which is a detached observation that false and true is yet another distinction. See, this will never end. We can go meta forever.

What I'm referring to comes prior to true or false and is much simpler. True and False is a relatively complex construction of the human mind.