Why trust our direct experience?

[Fran11]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

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

It's still relative because it's you who decides if it represents it or not. 

A non english speaking person would't consider the word "apple" to represent the same thing it represents for you.

An even beyond language barriers, if you consider an edge example instead of fruits you will see that it's completely subjective to say wether a set of thoughts represent something or not.

If I am imagining an apple (in the conventional sense of imagination), would you consider the word "apple" describes it or not? Whatever answer you give, I could have the opposite opinion. And who would arbitrate?

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Tanz]

You are the only show in town that matters, thats why

[Gesundheit]

52 minutes ago, gswva said:

@Leo Gura 

@Gesundheit I like the river analogy. What is a river exactly? We can isolate any chunks of water that constitute it, but would they still be called a river? If we assume water to be relative, then everything is absolute, and it somehow exists without existing at all.

I'm not sure if it's accurate at all though, it's just an idea.

Abstract things are abstract. Defining what a river is will only be an abstract definition no matter how much we try to define it, but the actual river you and I and everyone know does not need the abstract definition for it to be a river or for us to recognize what it is. I said twice that we can get technical about stuff however we want, I'll add now that that process can be done to infinity. Dissecting language is easy. It eats itself up eventually. But the absolute truth is not bound by language. Language is an abstract thing. The absolute truth is not.

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

It's still relative because it's you who decides if it represents it or not.

It's not me who decides whether or not it's true. If it's absolutely true, then it's absolutely true regardless of my or your opinions. We can be deluded, but the truth is unaffected by that.

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

A non english speaking person would't consider the word "apple" to represent the same thing it represents for you.

That's missing the point entirely. It's clear that the other person has to understand what I'm saying.

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

An even beyond language barriers, if you consider an edge example instead of fruits you will see that it's completely subjective to say wether a set of thoughts represent something or not.

I don't understand this.

1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

If I am imagining an apple (in the conventional sense of imagination), would you consider the word "apple" describes it or not? Whatever answer you give, I could have the opposite opinion. And who would arbitrate?

If you are imagining an apple, then you are imagining an apple. And since I don't have access to your imagination, I would have no idea what you're experiencing. But let's say we're sitting together and you told me that you are imagining an apple. In this case, whatever the thing that I have learned to be an apple will jump immediately into my imagination, whether it matches your imagination or not.

The mistake here is one of mistaking the actual for the abstract. The actuality of your example is true, but the abstract is not. The things that would be true are that you're imagining something and giving it the label apple, and then saying that outloud to me and then me imagining what the word apple means to me. That would be the absolute of the matter. Notice that whether or not I consider your imagination descriptive of the actual thing is irrelevant here.

[Carl-Richard]

2 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.

A thought is not Absolute Truth. A description is not Absolute Truth. Absolute truth cannot be emulated nor represented. Absolute Truth itself is the only thing that can be Absolute Truth.

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Just because language and thoughts are limited does not make them irrelevant.

It doesn't make them irrelevant; it makes them relative. 

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

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.

If it can be dissected, it isn't Absolute Truth.

[Fran11]

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

That's missing the point entirely. It's clear that the other person has to understand what I'm saying.

The very fact that there must necessarely be a consensus shows you the relativety of it.

 

29 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

The things that would be true are that you're imagining something and giving it the label apple, and then saying that outloud to me and then me imagining what the word apple means to me. 

Exactly the point! Absolute true would be just the images themselves without labels. See how these images are impossible to convey by saying "apple"?  We could be imagining the same or not and wouln't know the difference. Therefore making the statement "I'm imagining an apple" a relative truth. 

The attachament of the label "apple" and the judgamente of wether it describes those images or not is completely subjective. 

Yes, language is useful to describe truth once we gather consensus, I do not deny that, but still the map is not the territory.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Gesundheit]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A thought is not Absolute Truth. A description is not Absolute Truth. Absolute truth cannot be emulated nor represented.

Except it is and it can. Otherwise, if we say that your statement right here true, it automatically becomes BS and therefore it becomes incorrect that the absolute truth cannot be represented.

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Absolute Truth itself is the only thing that can be Absolute Truth.

Yeah, but that obviously does not exclude thought.

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It doesn't make them irrelevant; it makes them relative.

Relativity and being relevant or not are two different things. They're irrelevant to each other. A thing can be relative and either relevant or irrelevant. And it can be absolute and either relevant or irrelevant. Thoughts and language are relative, but that has nothing to do with their validity. A relative thought can either be true which would make it absolute, or false which would make it invalid.

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If it can be dissected, it isn't Absolute Truth.

Says who? Need I go and dissect that statement?

Edited August 31, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Gesundheit]

14 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Yes, language is useful to describe truth once we gather consensus, I do not deny that, but still the map is not the territory.

The point is that there's only one true map for the one true territory.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Fran11]

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

The point is that there's only one true map for the one true territory.

In spanish, my mother language, apple is "manzana".

Which one is the only one true?

Again, the need for consensual maps shows you their relativety.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Gesundheit]

24 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

In spanish, my mother language, apple is "manzana".

Which one is the only one true?

Any. The essence that they point to is the same, therefore they're both of the true map. But to say "gyifr" for example, that is not of the true map because it's not of the territory, because it's an empty word that doesn't point to anything in reality unless the it's a label for something, whether that essence/meaning exists for you only or for me only or for the both of us. But unless it has that essence, it's empty and therefore false and not of the map.

24 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Again, the need for consensual maps shows you their relativety.

Of course, the one true map is relative to the one true territory.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Fran11]

38 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

The essence that they point to is the same.

Not exactly. As in the example of the imaginary apples, we could be imagining slightly different things. We both would say "I,m imagining an apple" meaning something different, that's why it's relative.

There are differences even in such a simplistic example. Extrapolate this to our much more complex use for language in everyday life.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

5 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm claiming that there's only one true set of thoughts (1) that describe the absolute truth and therefore are true. And all other sets of thoughts (2) are false, wrong, and delusional.

There is an aspect of dualistic relativiity here. There is a 'true set of thoughts' and a 'false set of thoughts'. The distinction between the two categories is an aspect of relativity. That relative aspect may have value, yet the distinction between the two categories can collapse. 

[WaveInTheOcean]

7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura I'd love to wake up. 

and to not be human anymore...

as long as you want to wake up, you aren't going to

your wanting to wake up presupposes/implies that you somehow aren't God/Oneness/Love/Complete/Perfect already: that you are a human. Which is false.

You are imagining yourself to be a human, to have xxxx as name, to be xx years old, to live in xxxx country, to have been born by mr. xxxx and mrs. xxxx, to have xxxx as a job, to have xxxx amount of money left to live for, to have xxxx as a car. etc etc

Stop giving in to falsehood (believing any of what is going is serious or real)   It's just your own funny dream, haha <3 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Except it is and it can. Otherwise, if we say that your statement right here true, it automatically becomes BS and therefore it becomes incorrect that the absolute truth cannot be represented.

It's only true relative to a set of presuppositions. We've been through this already.

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Yeah, but that obviously does not exclude thought.

Absolute Truth does not come in the form of a thought. Only a thought comes in the form of a thought.

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

A relative thought can either be true which would make it absolute, or false which would make it invalid.

A relative thought can be relatively true (which would make it relative), or relatively false (which would make it relatively invalid).

 

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Need I go and dissect that statement?

You need to go experience it.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Fran11 said:

Not exactly. As in the example of the imaginary apples, we could be imagining slightly different things. We both would say "I,m imagining an apple" meaning something different, that's why it's relative.

There are differences even in such a simplistic example. Extrapolate this to our much more complex use for language in everyday lif e.

I said it multiple times above. You can get technical however and as much as you want about language and about how we use it. If you want to be a perfectionist about language then go on, but don't include me in that. When I say apple, it's clear to you that I don't mean a banana. End of discussion.

[Gesundheit]

59 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

There is an aspect of dualistic relativiity here. There is a 'true set of thoughts' and a 'false set of thoughts'. The distinction between the two categories is an aspect of relativity. That relative aspect may have value, yet the distinction between the two categories can collapse. 

It depends on whether or not you want to find the true map. If you're fine without it, then sure, collapse everything and rest in not-knowing.

And P.S. it's not about value, it's about validity. It's one thing to be looking to extract some value out of something, yet it's another thing to just see if that thing is  actually true or not.

[Gesundheit]

46 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's only true relative to a set of presuppositions. We've been through this already.

Yep and that means it's not absolutely true.

47 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Absolute Truth does not come in the form of a thought. Only a thought comes in the form of a thought.

 

What?

49 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A relative thought can be relatively true (which would make it relative), or relatively false (which would make it relatively invalid).

Yes that's the paradigm you subscribe to. My paradigm concludes that this paradigm is BS and that there's one set of absolutely true thoughts.

51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You need to go experience it.

Go and experience the absolute truth? What the hell?!

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Go and experience the absolute truth? What the hell?!

[Fran11]

24 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I said it multiple times above. You can get technical however and as much as you want about language and about how we use it. If you want to be a perfectionist about language then go on, but don't include me in that. 

LOL you can't be perfect with language, that's precisely the point you don't get 

You fail to understand the difference beetween usefulness and absoluteness. Many people are trying to explain it to you, seems you just dont want to get it.

So bye, good luck 

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

It depends on whether or not you want to find the true map. If you're fine without it, then sure, collapse everything and rest in not-knowing.

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. 

 

[Gesundheit]

11 hours ago, Fran11 said:

LOL you can't be perfect with language, that's precisely the point you don't get 

Sure, I never claimed otherwise. Language cannot capture the essence of the absolute truth. It's just a pointer towards it. However, pointers differ in their validity. Thus, some certain pointers are absolutely true, and all others are false. The purpose of language is not to capture the essence of the absolute truth. It's rather a medium for sharing/transferring it between different povs, whether of the same observer or of different observers. Language creates points of reference out of the absolute truth. These points of reference are all necessarily true. And whatever points of reference that don't belong to that certain group are necessarily false.