methodologies?

(not your beliefs in general, but your belief in your favored methodology for arriving at beliefs)

I have so many methodologies that there seems to be no need for additional challenges.

You talk to friends and take a small interest in their life. Their bound to have other methods then you, and then you can see where that's taken them

You talk to friends and take a small interest in their life. Their bound to have other methods then you, and then you can see where that's taken them

Can you think of an example of how a talk with your friends ended up challenging the way you had gone about trying to find the truth?

I have so many methodologies that there seems to be no need for additional challenges.
Oh, we are very complete today, oh Greenberg, are we not?;)

It sounds like an eclectic approach to truth acertainment. Do you consider these various methodologies of similar value? Do they never seem to contradict each other - results that is in a specific case or issue? If so, how do you choose which one is more valid?

This would make you rather different than an empiricist, for example, where details amongst submodalities may exist, but the overriding methodology is singular. Or?

I have an unfailing paradigm. Its true until its not.

I have an unfailing paradigm. Its true until its not. One could argue that a paradigm is a product of methodology? So how did you arrive at this paradigm? And given that you arrived via some truth ascertaining procedure(s)? How do you challenge that procedure? Could their be others that might be more effective? Might you be overemphasing that one or using it in areas that others might be more effective? Have you tried other methodologies to test them? Etc.

I don't really have a methodology :|, or I can't really seem to think of one. Hmm..

One could argue that a paradigm is a product of methodology? So how did you arrive at this paradigm? .

Hmm its true until its not? Probably from experience. Trial and error, that sort of thing.

How do you challenge that procedure?

By trying to prove it false [ya ya I know]. Is it true under x, y, z?


Could their be others that might be more effective? Might you be overemphasing that one or using it in areas that others might be more effective? Have you tried other methodologies to test them? Etc.

The other options would be : its false unless its not.

That paradigm is a potentially deleterious one, since it assumes an antagonism to all notions

its neither true nor false. Thats a position of doubt in all things and one that is slowest to result in any decision making.

My own paradigm results in my assumption that is I have a theory that I hold to be true, it is workable until my actions or circumstances prove it false.

I don't really have a methodology :|, or I can't really seem to think of one. Hmm..Oh you have at least one, probably several. My own sense is that most people have several though they may advocate one as the best or right one.

How do you decide something is true?

And then my question here is how have you challenged your habits around this?

Hmm its true until its not? Probably from experience. Trial and error, that sort of thing.

I found this rather complex SAM. So I will work with just this portion.

It's true until it's not sounds like you accepted a belief system and so far it is working.

Let's say, for example, this refers to religion.

But then in your professional life you have learned new truths. And probably some or many of these neither through simple acceptance and also not through trial and error. If I remember right you work with nutrition. They are so many opinions out there one must make choices. What is your methodology for that and have you challenged it?

I found this rather complex SAM. So I will work with just this portion.

It's true until it's not sounds like you accepted a belief system and so far it is working.

Let's say, for example, this refers to religion.

But then in your professional life you have learned new truths. And probably some or many of these neither through simple acceptance and also not through trial and error. If I remember right you work with nutrition. They are so many opinions out there one must make choices. What is your methodology for that and have you challenged it?


Professional truths work exactly the same. You sit and read what other people have done, accept what they did is right and then look for ways to falsify it, if you can reproduce what they have done, most likely true [if no operator error or inherently false hypothesis] if not, most likely false.

Oh you have at least one, probably several. My own sense is that most people have several though they may advocate one as the best or right one.

How do you decide something is true?

And then my question here is how have you challenged your habits around this?

It doesn't seem like a very good one; I look at the things which have already been proven right, and see if this follows the pattern. This is the main way I think of things being true or false, but if they're supposed to be innovative and never been thought of before, I'm not sure what I do, but I sure as hell do something..

It doesn't seem like a very good one; I look at the things which have already been proven right, and see if this follows the pattern. This is the main way I think of things being true or false, but if they're supposed to be innovative and never been thought of before, I'm not sure what I do, but I sure as hell do something..

Even 'proven right' is a complicated issue. How do you determine this? Whom do you trust and why?

And then there is, as you point out, those new things. There are also things that are hard to test or have not been tested?

Then there are all those things that experts disagree on.

Professional truths work exactly the same. You sit and read what other people have done, accept what they did is right and then look for ways to falsify it, if you can reproduce what they have done, most likely true [if no operator error or inherently false hypothesis] if not, most likely false.

So you do not accept as true any assertions related to your professional work unless you fail to falsify these assertions?

You can't prove anything right with certainty, as much as you can fail to prove it wrong.

methodologies?

(not your beliefs in general, but your belief in your favored methodology for arriving at beliefs)

I ask myself a question if I am doing anyone other than myself good with these methodologies, and if the answer is yes I am on the right path, if the answer is no than who am I kidding to ask myself...no really I change the methodology if the answer is no, I copy someone else. ;)

You can't prove anything right with certainty, as much as you can fail to prove it wrong.

You can prove one thing right with certainty if you are not the only one you are proving it to.

You can't prove anything right with certainty, as much as you can fail to prove it wrong.My actual concern was that your approach sounded incredibly time consuming. I thought most professionals would just have to accept certain core semi-consensus ideas in fields like nutrition, depending on peer review, etc., to whittle away groundless conclusions.

But then in a field like nutrition, at least in the fallout that hits the public, it seems the experts have a wide range of opinions.

I actually would have thought that many people in the field would simply have tended to fall into certain camps - whose work has some back up in studies - rather than that they must double check everything.

You can prove one thing right with certainty if you are not the only one you are proving it to.
Good luck with this one. I have tried to point out the distinction between proof for oneself and proof for others in a multitude of ways and I find that many people treat these as exactly the same. If you cannot prove it to others you should not believe it yourself seems to be the odd, irrational conclusion.

Oh, we are very complete today, oh Greenberg, are we not?;)

;)


It sounds like an eclectic approach to truth acertainment. Do you consider these various methodologies of similar value? Do they never seem to contradict each other - results that is in a specific case or issue? If so, how do you choose which one is more valid?

Like I said elsewhere - My belief system accomodates for all phenomena.

Although my "belief system" would take a lot to explain ...

;)Good, glad that got a wink back.

Like I said elsewhere - My belief system accomodates for all phenomena.

Although my "belief system" would take a lot to explain ...

Well, I'll probe a little.

Have you been surprised and had to spend some effort seeing if a phenonmenon fit?

Good, glad that got a wink back.

Here's another one. ;) So complete!


Have you been surprised and had to spend some effort seeing if a phenonmenon fit?

Sure. But being surprised doesn't necessarily mean that one's methodology or belief system is lacking. Being surprised and spending some effort on being able to understand something or to see it fit is simply a sign that things take some time and effort to understand them. Not being able to do something instantly is not necessarily the mark of a lacking methodology or a lacking belief system; it can simply be a sign that the task is demanding or that the person is not yet at an enlightened level of understanding where his cognition would run absolutely smoothly and instantenously.

E.g. if you show an academic mathematician a difficult math problem, he'll need some time and will have to invest some effort to understand it or solve it, but in time, he will.

Of course, I am suspecting that you will now ask about how long this "in time" is, and at what point it is "too long". I think this is up to the person themselves to determine, and to those who share the exact same methodology or belief system as that person.

Sure. But being surprised doesn't necessarily mean that one's methodology or belief system is lacking. Never, even for a nanosecond, thought it did. It is a way of probing your system without, rather boringly and probably inappropriately, asking for you to lay out your system. I am hoping via some questions to get an outline, a beginning sense of it.

Being surprised and spending some effort on being able to understand something or to see it fit is simply a sign that things take some time and effort to understand them. Not being able to do something instantly is not necessarily the mark of a lacking methodology or a lacking belief system; it can simply be a sign that the task is demanding or that the person is not yet at an enlightened level of understanding where his cognition would run absolutely smoothly and instantenously.
Ibid.

E.g. if you show an academic mathematician a difficult math problem, he'll need some time and will have to invest some effort to understand it or solve it, but in time, he will.Well, if we shift to physics, it seems sometimes they run into walls where contradictory things seem to be true. IOW they are not sure, perhaps for the whole rest of their lives how these two apparantly true things can both be true. And are disturbed by it.

Of course, I am suspecting that you will now ask about how long this "in time" is, and at what point it is "too long". I think this is up to the person themselves to determine, and to those who share the exact same methodology or belief system as that person.
You could look at what I mentioned above as 'asking' that. It seems a little different to me.

Never, even for a nanosecond, thought it did. It is a way of probing your system without, rather boringly and probably inappropriately, asking for you to lay out your system. I am hoping via some questions to get an outline, a beginning sense of it.

Actually, it is I who owes you that outline. I have tried so far to remain meta-, without getting anymore specific, trying to see how far this approach would get me. Not all that far, apparently.

I think it would take too much to explain it, and there are predictable questions and objections that I simply am not willing to get into right now, nor do I have the time for that. At this point, it doesn't seem necessary to me to make myself understood like that.

I shall see how much I can participate to your recent threads mostly in a meta- way, but apart from that, I will just thank you for having me.


Well, if we shift to physics, it seems sometimes they run into walls where contradictory things seem to be true. IOW they are not sure, perhaps for the whole rest of their lives how these two apparantly true things can both be true. And are disturbed by it.

Some methodologies surely are challengeable.


You could look at what I mentioned above as 'asking' that. It seems a little different to me.

It in fact is different. Because: There a methodologies and belief systems that have it in them to explain any and all phenomena. And then there are methodologies and belief systems that do not have it in them to explain any and all phenomena. The question is, of course, how do we know whether a belief system has such explanatory power or not.

A first criterion seems to be whether a belief system addresses all aspects of human life, answers the question about the purpose of human life, gives instructions about how to live in accordance with this purpose, and does all this in a philosophical, strict, consistent, logical manner.

It in fact is different. Because: There a methodologies and belief systems that have it in them to explain any and all phenomena. And then there are methodologies and belief systems that do not have it in them to explain any and all phenomena.
I learned something! I learned something! Meta or no, I learned something.

The question is, of course, how do we know whether a belief system has such explanatory power or not. or intention to explain it seems, perhaps. (and by the way, this was not a reference to your behavior here in the thread, but more to the possible role the system itself serves in general)

challenge a methodology? Question one's process of thought? Or kick around the foundation stones of what you think of X?

challenge a methodology? Question one's process of thought? Or kick around the foundation stones of what you think of X?
The former.

Like let's say you make decisions to believe things by listening to Uncle Charley. One day you find Uncle Charley doing something despicable to a tree. Perhaps you decide to drive to Denver and see if everyone there actually has green skin, like he says. This is challenging your methodology - learning about the world by believing what UC says - and using exploration and a kind of disorganized, but in this case very effective empirical approach.

I learned something! I learned something! Meta or no, I learned something.

Woohoo!


or intention to explain it seems, perhaps.

The intention to explain it is the beginning.

If someone or a book tells you right away: "I won't explain everything" - then how can they be trusted that that which they do explain is valid?

methodologies?

(not your beliefs in general, but your belief in your favored methodology for arriving at beliefs)

I challenge my methodologies by comparing them with other methodologies (which I gather through direct experiences, or if I have no former experience, through observation of other people experiences) and by comparing the RESULT of different methodologies.

For example: there are many ways to go to other city: by foot, by bike, by car, by train, by bus, by airplane, through this way, through that way, etc. How do I decide which is the best method and how do I know it is the best one (how do I challenge that is indeed the best one)? If I have no former experience, I will firstly ask people who already been there, then based on the outcome, I will be able to judge which one is best. If I have already former experiences, I will know by comparing them as well.

Of course, the methodology which is best for me, doesn't necessarily is the best for others, because people are different; objectives, expectation, and abilities or capacities are also varied.

I haven't really had to since the whole "santa claus" debacle of 1982. I decided then that a simplistic schroedinger's cat method was for me. Until I have opportunity to take a measurement, all things are true and all things are false. Belief is deciding what unverifiable things I believe. Like, I believe that Africa exists, but I'm undecided about Australia.

If someone or a book tells you right away: "I won't explain everything" - then how can they be trusted that that which they do explain is valid?
I would almost say the exact opposite.

I am also skeptical that a book, for example, can explain everything. The words do not contain information - or the sentences either. At least not in isolation. They do things. The do things to/in the reader. They are therefore reader dependent. The reader will not be able to/ready to/willing to understand everything. A second read, at a later time, often confirms this to the reader.

Oh, now I got more out of that section.

They may relate this new insight to experiences they had, perhaps some inspired or more intelligible in part because of the book.

Another, but related issue, is that information from books, given that they are in words, tend to engage certain kinds of mental activity. Explaining everything were it possible probably would not be a good idea, since it would set up a split in the person who would have these 'truths' in their mind, while the whole of the organism is not up to speed.

Belief is deciding what unverifiable things I believe. I like that sentence. I'd change that final 'believe' to 'are true'.

Can you expand a little on Schrodinger's cat thought experiment and what it means to you?

Like, I believe that Africa exists, but I'm undecided about Australia
You ever notice that when you meet an Australian they are never in Australia?
Very suspicious.

Anyone can talk funny.

I would almost say the exact opposite.

I am also skeptical that a book, for example, can explain everything. The words do not contain information - or the sentences either. At least not in isolation. They do things. The do things to/in the reader. They are therefore reader dependent. The reader will not be able to/ready to/willing to understand everything. A second read, at a later time, often confirms this to the reader.

Oh, now I got more out of that section.

They may relate this new insight to experiences they had, perhaps some inspired or more intelligible in part because of the book.

Another, but related issue, is that information from books, given that they are in words, tend to engage certain kinds of mental activity. Explaining everything were it possible probably would not be a good idea, since it would set up a split in the person who would have these 'truths' in their mind, while the whole of the organism is not up to speed.

It all depends on what the book or person says, and on what the Absolute Truth is.

If the Absolute Truth can be put into words, then it can be written down in a book. And people can read the book and come to the Absolute Truth.

If the Absolute Truth can not be put into words, we are in the realm of non-duality, in the realm of where everything is relative and contingent and thus in-and-of-itself meaningless, and thus this is no different than saying there is no Absolute Truth.

If the Absolute Truth can not be put into words, we are in the realm of non-duality, in the realm of where everything is relative and contingent and thus in-and-of-itself meaningless, and thus this is no different than saying there is no Absolute Truth.
I am not sure this is true, though I do think, in some way, things are relative. Perhaps truths must be lived rather than thought. Or take the Zen notion of language as pointing but not as container.

I also had the thought that specific languages have strengths and weaknesses in describing certain things and this might mean that one can only get so much in each one.

Hmm its true until its not? Probably from experience. Trial and error, that sort of thing.

No wonder you're always wrong. Guesswork. :D

No wonder you're always wrong. Guesswork. :D
And you, Q, how do you determine what is true? What are your favored methodologies and how have you challenged, tested them?

And you, Q, how do you determine what is true? What are your favored methodologies and how have you challenged, tested them?

The depends, the term truth is bandied about much like the term faith, and gets muddled by theists who use it for divine explanations.

I'm more interested in finding out how things work, not the philosophical mumbo-jumbo most people bleat about.

Yeah, thats reflected in your posts here. Your interest in how things work minus philosophical mumbo jumbo.

I like that sentence. I'd change that final 'believe' to 'are true'.

Can you expand a little on Schrodinger's cat thought experiment and what it means to you?


You ever notice that when you meet an Australian they are never in Australia?
Very suspicious.

Anyone can talk funny.


Shrodinger's Cat-Until I verify my belief in something I admit that the truth may be any and all possibilities. I can choose what possibility to believe without taking a measurement. For example, If I want to I can choose to believe that overnight my hair has come alive and turned blue. Until I look in the mirror, I cannot verify the color. The... Aliveness of it will require me to go to a scientist and have it examined for potential signs of life.

Consider, of course. Do typed words shown on my screen prove that I exist?

Q-interesting how much time you spend in the religion subforum, then.

I am not sure this is true, though I do think, in some way, things are relative. Perhaps truths must be lived rather than thought. Or take the Zen notion of language as pointing but not as container.

The thing is if we relativize things to the point of doubting whether the Absolute Truth can be put into words at all,
then this is an implicit rejection of rationality,
so what is the value of such a irrational analysis then?



I also had the thought that specific languages have strengths and weaknesses in describing certain things and this might mean that one can only get so much in each one.

It is a basic proposition in linguistics that every natural human language can be used to express everything; if words for something do not yet exist in a language, then they can be made by the rules of that language, or the concept in question described with already existing words.
Granted, this might look a bit clumsy sometimes, but it is not impossible; and is more an act of stringent analysis than of language itself.

The thing is if we relativize things to the point of doubting whether the Absolute Truth can be put into words at all,
then this is an implicit rejection of rationality,
so what is the value of such a irrational analysis then?
1) given that absolute truth, if I have understood your posts in the past, would include not merely accuracy but would also involve helping a person come to the best allowable state - happiness, nirvana, reduced pain - and maintaining it, it seems impossible to me that a single text could do that for the diverse persons I encounter.
2) I am not sure how much information can be 'put in words'. I think the container metaphor is limiting and confusing. Words do things. And they do not do the same things to different people.
3) One can have a text that is rational for a particular person who makes use of it in rational ways. Perhaps even groups. But one text for everyone. I think this is impossible, even if this implies things that seem horrible.
4) If I must imagine that a text I encounter must be useful for everyone, and take into account how they will react and what that text will do with people quite different from me, I find that the text's burden is too great. I think this freezes me. I cannot move towards truth unless all can, or perhaps even 'do move' if the text must also be a motivator.

This makes one a kind of Mahayana Bodhisatva, but instead of waiting at the cusp of enlightenment (or whatever) one is at the starting gate, looking for a text that everyone can use as a first step.

It is a basic proposition in linguistics that every natural human language can be used to express everything; if words for something do not yet exist in a language, then they can be made by the rules of that language, or the concept in question described with already existing words.
Granted, this might look a bit clumsy sometimes, but it is not impossible; and is more an act of stringent analysis than of language itself.
You would have to give people experiences for them to use these words. That cliche names for all the types of snow in Inuit would be useless as paraphrases. That's perhaps too harsh...radically incomplete I would say. Languages build up along lines of experience.

Do you know of any text that reaches/is useful non-relatively? that all can use, or even most? (I mean one in this philosophical/religious context)

I'm more interested in finding out how things work, .
What methodologies do you use to find out how things work? Have you challenged these and if so, how?

1) given that absolute truth, if I have understood your posts in the past, would include not merely accuracy but would also involve helping a person come to the best allowable state - happiness, nirvana, reduced pain - and maintaining it, it seems impossible to me that a single text could do that for the diverse persons I encounter.

It depends on what the texts says, right?
A text may contain information and instruction - those two combined have the potential to bring about a new reality.


2) I am not sure how much information can be 'put in words'. I think the container metaphor is limiting and confusing. Words do things. And they do not do the same things to different people.

Sure - within a limited time-frame, "words do different things to different people".
But if there is an Absolute Truth, and it is "put into words", then, when it is read, it will eventually "do the same thing to all people".


4) If I must imagine that a text I encounter must be useful for everyone, and take into account how they will react and what that text will do with people quite different from me, I find that the text's burden is too great. I think this freezes me. I cannot move towards truth unless all can, or perhaps even 'do move' if the text must also be a motivator.

If it is a text containing the Absolute Truth, then it also motivates.


You would have to give people experiences for them to use these words. That cliche names for all the types of snow in Inuit would be useless as paraphrases. That's perhaps too harsh...radically incomplete I would say. Languages build up along lines of experience.

See about the great Eskimo vocabulary hoax:
http://users.utu.fi/freder/Pullum-Eskimo-VocabHoax.pdf
Many of those snow names actually are paraphrases or derivative words. It turns out that their names for snow aren't really more complex than ours.

Granted, experience plays a part in how well a person can understand a concept - that is common. But it is also common that the average native speaker of a language uses and understands only a portion of the language, an most likely, they never use and understand all of it. For example, how many people to whom English is their native language know what "eschew" means? Within a language, there is already a potential existing that isn't used by all its speakers, or not at all. But we can hardly blame the language for being "insufficient" or "incomplete" when the fact is that its current and particular usages don't use that potential to its full.



Do you know of any text that reaches/is useful non-relatively? that all can use, or even most? (I mean one in this philosophical/religious context)

I know of a candidate, yes. I am not yet 100% sure about it, so I can't disclose the name yet - it wouldn't be fair, if I am not 100% sure. But in the discussions I undertake here at the forums, I am testing myself in the understanding of it and what it purports. So far, it hasn't failed.

It depends on what the texts says, right?
A text may contain information and instruction - those two combined have the potential to bring about a new reality.And pretty much every such text almost immediately turns off most people who encounter it. The sentence do not 'talk to them' or they cannot connect to them or they feel distaste or boredom in reaction to them or they do not understand them.

Sure - within a limited time-frame, "words do different things to different people".
But if there is an Absolute Truth, and it is "put into words", then, when it is read, it will eventually "do the same thing to all people".I consider this extremely unlikely. I do not think such a text exists. And a person or God who wants to reach all people, it seems to me, would have to use a variety of texts.

If it is a text containing the Absolute Truth, then it also motivates.
Then, again, I do not think there is one. It should be catching on like wildfire and disrupting other belief systems.

See about the great Eskimo vocabulary hoax:
http://users.utu.fi/freder/Pullum-Eskimo-VocabHoax.pdf
Many of those snow names actually are paraphrases or derivative words. It turns out that their names for snow aren't really more complex than ours.Beside the point. I could use expert language or even something so simple as the names of wildflowers that most people do not know.

Granted, experience plays a part in how well a person can understand a concept - that is common. But it is also common that the average native speaker of a language uses and understands only a portion of the language, an most likely, they never use and understand all of it. For example, how many people to whom English is their native language know what "eschew" means? Within a language, there is already a potential existing that isn't used by all its speakers, or not at all. But we can hardly blame the language for being "insufficient" or "incomplete" when the fact is that its current and particular usages don't use that potential to its full.I am not blaming languages. I am focusing on the practical problem of people who lack words can not simply be parphrased to understanding.

I know of a candidate, yes. I am not yet 100% sure about it, so I can't disclose the name yet - it wouldn't be fair, if I am not 100% sure. But in the discussions I undertake here at the forums, I am testing myself in the understanding of it and what it purports. So far, it hasn't failed.The failure would not be whether it works for you and fits things, but whether it reaches everyone and they also have that experience.

But let us, or me, know.

And pretty much every such text almost immediately turns off most people who encounter it. The sentence do not 'talk to them' or they cannot connect to them or they feel distaste or boredom in reaction to them or they do not understand them.

Well, yes. But is the text to be blamed?


I consider this extremely unlikely. I do not think such a text exists. And a person or God who wants to reach all people, it seems to me, would have to use a variety of texts.

... Or present them with said text at a time in their life when they are receptive to it.


If it is a text containing the Absolute Truth, then it also motivates.

Then, again, I do not think there is one. It should be catching on like wildfire and disrupting other belief systems.

Is it not catching on like wildfire and disrupting other belief systems?
I think it is.


I am not blaming languages. I am focusing on the practical problem of people who lack words can not simply be parphrased to understanding.

Again, it depends on what the Absolute Truth is. Perhaps it can be adequately paraphrased so that even those who lack the understanding of particular words can understand it?


The failure would not be whether it works for you and fits things, but whether it reaches everyone and they also have that experience.

Whether they have that experience or not will also depend on whether they follow the instructions, or not.

Well, yes. But is the text to be blamed? According to my pedagogical ideas, yes. If it is claiming to be Absolute Truth it should have absolute communication functions. Otherwise we could have something like a perfect text that NO ONE understands and is drawn to. I taught you but you didn't learn is too old school for me. Sort of like 'I was the perfect husband for you so if you suffered it is your fault.'

... Or present them with said text at a time in their life when they are receptive to it.meaning that all people would be receptive at some point in their lives. I am wholeheartedly skeptical, but, in the higher parts of my left brain, think it is honorable to admit that I cannot know it is impossible. I do await demonstrations.

Is it not catching on like wildfire and disrupting other belief systems?
I think it is. I don't know yet, now do I?

Again, it depends on what the Absolute Truth is. Perhaps it can be adequately paraphrased so that even those who lack the understanding of particular words can understand it? To me the real problem is that they will lack interest, motivation, the same goals.....and around this latter point, I suppose some incredibly complicated post-modern text with a wide variety of approaches might somehow be possible. I am not sure it would be 'one text' and in the end I am not sure we would call the various followers 'fo the same group'. But my skepticism is on the table....

Oh, God, I hope you don't mean materialist capitalism......

Whether they have that experience or not will also depend on whether they follow the instructions, or not.How could anyone resist perfection?
I immediately think of a saleman telling me he has a tie every man will love if he follows the instructions.

How could anyone resist perfection?

Free will.



However -

I taught you but you didn't learn is too old school for me. Sort of like 'I was the perfect husband for you so if you suffered it is your fault.'

Such approaches can be an abuse of free will, but only possible if the Absolute Truth is comprehended on the level of a "teenager with anger issues" or the like, or if the Absolute Truth actually is on the level of a "teenager with anger issues".

"I taught you but you didn't learn" might actually be a truthful assessment of a situation, or it might be a self-defense of an inept and uncaring teacher. Similar with the example of the husband.

Given the usual experience we have with people's pride/vanity and cruelty, I understand your skepticism about the notion of there being an Absolute Truth and possible to express in words, in a relatively short form (e.g. a book).

How could anyone resist perfection?

Easily. Perfection, certainty, absolute, these are concepts without referant in reality. Trying to look for actual perfection is an error of kind and a great source of suffering.

Easily. Perfection, certainty, absolute, these are concepts without referant in reality. Trying to look for actual perfection is an error of kind and a great source of suffering.I think you need to read that sentence in context. I was responding to the notion of a text that is or contains absolute truth - not my assertion - and in that context asking how such a thing - ie. an objectively perfect thing, since that is the assertion - could be resisted.

If you are scanning my posts for 'errors' please take into account the context.

Free will. so everyone on earth 'could' read this text, find it accessible and it would work for them - bring them toward where they want to be, if only they tried?

"I taught you but you didn't learn" might actually be a truthful assessment of a situation, or it might be a self-defense of an inept and uncaring teacher. Similar with the example of the husband.I actually think it can never be an accurate assessment. I offered you an opportunity, perhaps. But teach is a verb that includes both teacher and student. It is a dynamic relationship. I cannot teach you when you are asleep, for example. I was not teaching, I was talking to no one, really. I think to me this difference we have here is around the nature of truth. To me it is in relationship and cannot be contained - ie. in a text. Not universally.

I get your point about pride/vanity and I agree. But I also do not think everyone wants the same things. And by things I include processes like how one relates to others, to the world, to things, to themselves.

I used to think we did, but I don't any more. I feel there might be some way out: iow the text is at a level of abstraction that somehow allows for these differences, but I remain skeptical. I am still curious about which text you think does this.

so everyone on earth 'could' read this text, find it accessible and it would work for them - bring them toward where they want to be, if only they tried?

Basically, yes.


But I also do not think everyone wants the same things. And by things I include processes like how one relates to others, to the world, to things, to themselves.

I used to think we did, but I don't any more.

It depends on what we think the "self" is. If we posit that all living beings are in some crucial way the same, then the variety of what each of them truly wants diminishes greatly.


I feel there might be some way out: iow the text is at a level of abstraction that somehow allows for these differences

Yes, this is quite it. I do understand your skepticism, though.


I am still curious about which text you think does this.

I apologize, I can't say that yet. I still need to check and test some propositions.

It depends on what we think the "self" is. If we posit that all living beings are in some crucial way the same, then the variety of what each of them truly wants diminishes greatly.There's the rub.

Yes, this is quite it. I do understand your skepticism, though.I assumed that, but good to hear it anyway.

I apologize, I can't say that yet. I still need to check and test some propositions.Yes, I picked that up, hence my wording.

For me it seems the next step must be the concrete, so I'll await the text.