The horizon that we face is not the continual advancement of technology, those advancements, whether great or small, will come – but rather, our horizon lies within our very thought process, for it is through our thought process, that process by which we think, that our future within the universe shall be determined.

Our thought process, that process by which we think, can limit our understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. We bring our belief systems, right or wrong, with us in their entirety as we look at whatever we are looking at – thereby do we judge that which we see.

This process that all of us exhibit, is neither good nor bad – it simply is. That is to say, it exists in us as we go about to live our lives.

This is a marvelous biological machine, which we inhabit; but we, for the most part, know little about the way in which it functions.

The point here is that we are at the mercy of our own thought process, whether or not we have consciously chosen that process to which we adhere – nevertheless, it is our own. Either way, we are subject to it, limited by it, and ultimately relegated to be submissive to it. We are irrevocably tied to it.

We see the world not necessarily as it is, but rather as a result of our thought process, that process by which we think. We are blinded by our thought process – thinking, that the way in which we see, is in actually, the way in which things truly are. Never taking into account that our thought process colors everything we see at every moment of our lives. Our belief systems, whether consciously chosen or not, are present, and operating, at every moment of our lives – continually lying in wait, as it were, to sort out that which we are seeing according to pre-established parameters.

But what parameters, one might ask? Well, those parameters established by our own belief systems.

We think, automatically, perhaps without any conscious thought at all, that the world around us exists as we see it. Never taking into account our very thought process has and continues to colour our world. After all, it is our thought process that provides the bases of information, which we in turn process, and use to evaluate our world.

It never enters our mind that our very thought process is individually and uniquely our own. That our thought process is the result of our individual genetic make up, environmental influences and experiences, as well as decisions both consciously and subconsciously made throughout our lives.

Whether or not we are bound by these thought processes and belief systems of ours is not the point; rather it is that they indeed exist within each one of us, nevertheless - the inherant price of our humanness.

Therefore, it is that our salvation comes merely in the knowing. There is and remains a way of seeing, of discerning those things that appear before us. Coming to anything that lies before us with an open mind, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions whatsoever is the only way to discern those things of significance. But how might this be possible?

Those questions that we have, or more precisely, those answers that we seek, are available to us through the tearing down, the putting aside of what it is that we know or have known in the past. For you see, our past acts to limit us by framing what it is that we are seeing “now”, in the present tense. And by so doing, that is by coming to what it is that we see devoid of preconceptions, or preconceived notions whatsoever, we allow those things sought, to reveal themselves to us.

Entities exist in forms that we may never (in our lifetime) imagine, or come to appreciate in any real or significant way.

Those individuals of a cynical nature, that is to say, critical in their observations, will never see that the intellect is only meant for the assembling of a matter after it is inhaled by the greater being – the self, as it exists in its entirety. The intellect was never designed to carry the being, but rather to assemble the information once collected - after the fact.

There is indeed a system in place that hides enlightenment from those that lack the wisdom of self – it is not withheld for any other reason than out of respect for what is at hand. For even enlightenment is an entity that chooses to whom it might reveal itself.

Lacking an understanding of the ways in which entities exist, will never excuse us from the principles at hand.

Ultimately, one must set one’s own agenda, an agenda particular, or peculiar to one's own well being - for there is no sense of well being possible, by having one's agenda set by another (e.g., society, or those societal norms to which we so often adhere); regardless of whether or not that decision is a conscious one.

It is important then to remember, that we do not find what it is that we seek, but rather, what we seek is revealed to us as we come to understand that what we seek are indeed themselves entities, who, given the chance, are desirous to be discovered.

So it can be said: "Intelligence, by its very nature, wants to be discovered, it desires to become known."

There again, our responsibility in this endeavor is simply to come to what it is that we seek with an open mind, that is to say, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions, or ideas whatsoever.

Cheers

The horizon that we face is not the continual advancement of technology, those advancements, whether great or small, will come – but rather, our horizon lies within our very thought process, for it is through our thought process, that process by which we think, that our future within the universe shall be determined.

Our thought process, that process by which we think, can limit our understanding of the world in which we find ourselves. We bring our belief systems, right or wrong, with us in their entirety as we look at whatever we are looking at – thereby do we judge that which we see.

This process that all of us exhibit, is neither good nor bad – it simply is. That is to say, it exists in us as we go about to live our lives.

This is a marvelous biological machine, which we inhabit; but we, for the most part, know little about the way in which it functions.

The point here is that we are at the mercy of our own thought process, whether or not we have consciously chosen that process to which we adhere – nevertheless, it is our own. Either way, we are subject to it, limited by it, and ultimately relegated to be submissive to it. We are irrevocably tied to it.

We see the world not necessarily as it is, but rather as a result of our thought process, that process by which we think. We are blinded by our thought process – thinking, that the way in which we see, is in actually, the way in which things truly are. Never taking into account that our thought process colors everything we see at every moment of our lives. Our belief systems, whether consciously chosen or not, are present, and operating, at every moment of our lives – continually lying in wait, as it were, to sort out that which we are seeing according to pre-established parameters.

But what parameters, one might ask? Well, those parameters established by our own belief systems.

We think, automatically, perhaps without any conscious thought at all, that the world around us exists as we see it. Never taking into account our very thought process has and continues to colour our world. After all, it is our thought process that provides the bases of information, which we in turn process, and use to evaluate our world.

It never enters our mind that our very thought process is individually and uniquely our own. That our thought process is the result of our individual genetic make up, environmental influences and experiences, as well as decisions both consciously and subconsciously made throughout our lives.

Whether or not we are bound by these thought processes and belief systems of ours is not the point; rather it is that they indeed exist within each one of us, nevertheless - the inherant price of our humanness.

Therefore, it is that our salvation comes merely in the knowing. There is and remains a way of seeing, of discerning those things that appear before us. Coming to anything that lies before us with an open mind, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions whatsoever is the only way to discern those things of significance. But how might this be possible?

Those questions that we have, or more precisely, those answers that we seek, are available to us through the tearing down, the putting aside of what it is that we know or have known in the past. For you see, our past acts to limit us by framing what it is that we are seeing “now”, in the present tense. And by so doing, that is by coming to what it is that we see devoid of preconceptions, or preconceived notions whatsoever, we allow those things sought, to reveal themselves to us.

Entities exist in forms that we may never (in our lifetime) imagine, or come to appreciate in any real or significant way.

Those individuals of a cynical nature, that is to say, critical in their observations, will never see that the intellect is only meant for the assembling of a matter after it is inhaled by the greater being – the self, as it exists in its entirety. The intellect was never designed to carry the being, but rather to assemble the information once collected - after the fact.

There is indeed a system in place that hides enlightenment from those that lack the wisdom of self – it is not withheld for any other reason than out of respect for what is at hand. For even enlightenment is an entity that chooses to whom it might reveal itself.

Lacking an understanding of the ways in which entities exist, will never excuse us from the principles at hand.

Ultimately, one must set one’s own agenda, an agenda particular, or peculiar to one's own well being - for there is no sense of well being possible, by having one's agenda set by another (e.g., society, or those societal norms to which we so often adhere); regardless of whether or not that decision is a conscious one.

It is important then to remember, that we do not find what it is that we seek, but rather, what we seek is revealed to us as we come to understand that what we seek are indeed themselves entities, who, given the chance, are desirous to be discovered.

So it can be said: "Intelligence, by its very nature, wants to be discovered, it desires to become known."

There again, our responsibility in this endeavor is simply to come to what it is that we seek with an open mind, that is to say, a mind devoid of any preconceived notions, or ideas whatsoever.

Cheers

Hi Jocariah,
Some well thought-out observations there. :) I'm not sure I understand the conclusion(s), though. Can you please summarize?

...we are what we are ... not, what we think we are. our thought process, that process by which we think, continually colours our world, and thereby alters our perception of our world ... and of course, us in our world.

Jocariah

So what happens if you eliminate the thought process which limits our perception, then are we left without thoughts? Or are we introduced to oness?

Except for the concept of "entities", this is basically Buddhist philosophy. We are conditioned by the culture around us to think in certain ways, and that thinking influences our perceptions. We never experience reality directly, but through this filter. This is a very useful skill, but also limiting. Meditation and other techniques are designed to transcend this conditioning to experience reality more directly.

It's redundant to say "thought process". Thought is a process.

So what happens if you eliminate the thought process which limits our perception, then are we left without thoughts? Or are we introduced to oness?
We are left with freer thoughts and freer perceptions.

Jocariah:

Question: You affirm that there is a way to objectively evaluate the truth, yes? In the dropping of preconceived notions and starting from a clean slate so as to accumulate what is really, as opposed to in mockery of, the truth, yes?

Another thing: Are you proclaiming that all objects of inquiry are in fact entities that have an intelligence themselves? That ideas are themselves beings which interact with us?

ARe you also proposing something peculiar about the self? That the self and the mind are not one in the same, but the self is some sort of thing beyond and perhaps above the mind?

For the most part, as I write, I speculate... truth, any truth, at least from my perspective, seems to me to be temporal, sequential, leading us from one precept to the next in an ever-changing, ever-growing path toward greater understanding – we never arrive, but rather grow in our basic human intellectual capacity.

No ultimate truths here, but rather truth (which is) appropriate for both our place in time and in the development of our own (individual) human psyche.

Cheers, Jocariah

Jocariah:

Does this conception of truth include a notion that there is no truth that can be said to be absolutely true in all cases? Or do you mean that the quest for turth leads us on an eternal voyage towards more truth?

– we never arrive, but rather grow in our basic human intellectual capacity.

but i want to arrive... i want rest... i want non-existence...
religions said it's possible...
but i think... life might be never ending...
and when we've reached very high... we fall down again...

C7ityi:

Eternity seems to demand that we all persists forever, and thus yes, we "fall down again".

maybe... but i think it's also a bit illogical if evolution can go backwards... because... we always get more experience... we never lose anything...

i don't know anything anymore...

Jocariah:

Does this conception of truth include a notion that there is no truth that can be said to be absolutely true in all cases? Or do you mean that the quest for turth leads us on an eternal voyage towards more truth?

... Possibly the latter minus the ‘eternal’, given that based on your questions I have only two choices......absolute truth seems, from my perspective at least, rather like saying 'absolute clouds' -- they, the clouds, definitely exist, but fleetingly at best, forever changing as they do, as a indication of the weather...Jocariah

... Possibly the latter minus the ‘eternal’, given that based on your questions I have only two choices......absolute truth seems, from my perspective at least, rather like saying 'absolute clouds' -- they, the clouds, definitely exist, but fleetingly at best, forever changing as they do, as a indication of the weather...Jocariah

The objective of inquiry then is to realize that which is permanence and beyond change. If all object phenomena is subject to constant change, what then might we use as reference?

c7ityi_:

"maybe... but i think it's also a bit illogical if evolution can go backwards... because... we always get more experience... we never lose anything... "

Well, consider this: If the end is unreachable, what is it but an eternal climb?

Jocariah:

"... Possibly the latter minus the ‘eternal’, given that based on your questions I have only two choices......absolute truth seems, from my perspective at least, rather like saying 'absolute clouds' -- they, the clouds, definitely exist, but fleetingly at best, forever changing as they do, as a indication of the weather...Jocariah "

Supposing that change, as you seem to imply, is perpetual, would not this be a truth which itself is unchanging? Therefore an example of a truth which holds absolutely throughout time? Which is not subject to any transient nature?


Bowser:

"The objective of inquiry then is to realize that which is permanence and beyond change. If all object phenomena is subject to constant change, what then might we use as reference? "

INdeed. This ought to be the topic of our inquiry and the focus of our efforts.

Supposing that change, as you seem to imply, is perpetual, would not this be a truth which itself is unchanging? Therefore an example of a truth which holds absolutely throughout time? Which is not subject to any transient nature?


It is still object phenomena as far as the observer is concerned, but an interesting observation, nonetheless.

Bowser:

But is this "object phenomena", which implies eternity either to itself or to its opposite, not something which can be said to point to the necessity of the unchanging? For if all is change, we have found the unchanging (and therefore the statement is wrong), and if there exists the unchanging, well we have also found the unchanging (which would be fine and apparently true).

Supposing that change, as you seem to imply, is perpetual, would not this be a truth which itself is unchanging? Therefore an example of a truth which holds absolutely throughout time? Which is not subject to any transient nature?

... clouds continually change - if one finds in that an absolute truth, who am I to say otherwise - it is up to each of us to say as we see…. perhaps each of us see a facet of the whole, as is our nature, and in each facet there resides some truth...Jocariah

Jocoriah:

Well, let's strike at the heart of the matter: What do you have to buttress this position you hold regarding truth? That is, that almost all truths change and the like?

Bowser:

But is this "object phenomena", which implies eternity either to itself or to its opposite, not something which can be said to point to the necessity of the unchanging? For if all is change, we have found the unchanging (and therefore the statement is wrong), and if there exists the unchanging, well we have also found the unchanging (which would be fine and apparently true).

It would seem so, and relative to the observer, too. Though change might seem unchanging, it also has been proven to be subjective. Since change is our measure of time, then change is not a constant, since at the speed of light time stops an thus so does change.

Bowser:

"It would seem so, and relative to the observer, too. Though change might seem unchanging, it also has been proven to be subjective. Since change is our measure of time, then change is not a constant, since at the speed of light time stops an thus so does change."

If change does not exist at the speed of light, all the more to say that change is not the foundation of reality, but that there exists things which are unchangable and immutable. Moreover, an absolute relativity would itself point to something that does not change: Relativity. Or paradoxically, relativity would prove the absolute.

However, that being said, change most assurely does occur at the speed of light and time does not, in anyway, disappear. Proof of this can be found that the speed of light is finite (approximately 300,000 kilometres per second) all which travels at the speed of light travels in a normal, incremental fashion, rather than existing infinitely. Similarly, time exists for the speed of light, by virtue that it again, the speed is not infinite, and something moving at light speed takes time to reach certain areas. Time does slow down when approaching the speed of light, but never ceases to be. For instance, though the space shuttle goes exceedingly fast, only five minutes of time is lost.

If I remember correctly, the space shuttle goes about 36,000 mph. Or roughly - and we neend't be precise here for the time being - 58,000 kph or 16 kps. This places the space shuttle at .005 lightspeed, or half of one percent. Therefore, at lightspeed, if my calculations are correct, the voyage would have lost only....1000 minutes, or 16.66 hours, due to time dilation.

It is also quite well to note that it is said that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. This would mean that -even for the thing travelling at light speed-, the speed of light would be constant. This would preclude the ability of movement at light speed being infinite, for one's own reference frame and those of every other would demand that you are in movement only at 300,000 kps. Of course, one's perception of everything else would go out of whack at this speed, in accords properly to it all.

We must remember also remember: It is ridiculous to speak of anything with mass moving at the speed of light, as it is apparently an impossibility. The reverse of annihilation occurs, whereby one's energy instantly becomes mass, rather than the other way around.

My error, I stand corrected :)

Bowser:

Not a problem whatsoever.

But back to change: It does not seem that change is at the heart of all things. I would also posit that if such is the case, this would facillitate the possibility of our thought processes being in line with objectivity. What say you?

That seems logical. Change is the only way to conceptualize time, so it must guide all other occurences.Objectivity for change or against it, or both?

Bowser:

Not a problem whatsoever.

But back to change: It does not seem that change is at the heart of all things. I would also posit that if such is the case, this would facillitate the possibility of our thought processes being in line with objectivity. What say you?

Keep rolling with it. I will let you know when you complete the though.

Oniw17:

"That seems logical. Change is the only way to conceptualize time, so it must guide all other occurences.Objectivity for change or against it, or both? "

I am afraid I don't understand what you meant here.

Is our thought process objective toward change or away from it? Or am I using the wrong interpretation of the word?

Oniw17:

By "objective" I meant "the antithesis of subjective" or "not based on personal whim".

That is to say, that which is objective is true beyond the prejudices of the perceivers.

You seem to have meant "does our thought processes want change or not", yes?

Jocoriah:

Well, let's strike at the heart of the matter: What do you have to buttress this position you hold regarding truth? That is, that almost all truths change and the like?

Buttress, used as a verb, as I understand it means to support, shore up or strengthen.

So then as I am reading your question, it becomes, "what do I have to support, shore up or strengthen my position that I hold regarding truth"?

I think my answer is found in a prior post in this thread. If I may quote myself, as follows:

“For the most part, as I write, I speculate... truth, any truth, at least from my perspective, seems to me to be temporal, sequential, leading us from one precept to the next in an ever-changing, ever-growing path toward greater understanding – we never arrive, but rather grow in our basic human intellectual capacity.

No ultimate truths here, but rather truth (which is) appropriate for both our place in time and in the development of our own (individual) human psyche.

Cheers, Jocariah”

So I guess my answer is, "my perspective"...cheers, Jocariah
.

Jocoriah:

So you see in the "quest of truth" and its various stages, a fundamental flux-nature to truth itself? That is to say, that the process demands that truth correspond to it?

Jocoriah:

So you see in the "quest of truth" and its various stages, a fundamental flux-nature to truth itself? That is to say, that the process demands that truth correspond to it?

Hi James,

I've enjoyed reading your remarks, very much ... however I can't seem to grasp where you are going with this one... language can be so imprecise when it comes to topics as these, and I am, it seems, too impatient - I apologize.

Cheers, Jocariah

Jocariah:

I am glad you have enjoyed my part of the conversation. Know, too, that I have enjoyed yours, also.

But to clarify:

On the path of truth, you say that one truth leads to another, yes? Taking this idea, you postulate that perhaps truth is in essence like this? That truth itself leads to more truth which leads to more truth ad infinitum. That the nature of truth is perhaps even to make more truth, so that it is in constant flux?

Jocariah:

I am glad you have enjoyed my part of the conversation. Know, too, that I have enjoyed yours, also.

But to clarify:

On the path of truth, you say that one truth leads to another, yes? Taking this idea, you postulate that perhaps truth is in essence like this? That truth itself leads to more truth which leads to more truth ad infinitum. That the nature of truth is perhaps even to make more truth, so that it is in constant flux?

Hi James,

Yes, indeed - you seem to convey, herein, in few words what I have apparently failed to solidify with many... well done...Cheers, Jocariah

EDIT: ...and, if I may add, truth exists merely to lead us to the next truth, the next waypoint, and is not, in and of itself, 'absolute' in nature - and as the clouds, truth exists (to be) in motion....Jocariah
.

.

Jocariah:

Then I must ask you to ponder this: Can anything which is in flux not depend on that which is not in two ways? That is, first that all states of flux depend on the non-fluxing moments, and two, that in order to remain in flux, it must have constancy? And in so doing, do not we find that the flux implies the non-fluxing aspect of truth?

TRUTH:

Christianity is a truth, not an absolute or ultimate truth, but a truth that will lead us to the next step in the journey that is truth.

No doubt there will come a time that we will put away our childish ways... and embrace another truth that will lead us to yet another truth.

No absolutes here, merely stages along our, man's, journey.

Christianity is fully and completely based on FAITH. Why is that? Well, whenever what is laid out within its doctrine meets with our intellectual reasoning and we realize that it makes no sense at all...in comes FAITH.

Christianity is a great tool with which the masses can set their moral compass... it is not, however, an absolute truth, rather, a truth that leads us to yet another truth.

The delivery system, if one might choose to call it that, is Christianity. The concepts therein are valid - truth lies within these concepts, even if Jesus, upon which, Christianity is based, was merely a prophet of a higher power - a higher order of beings.

What do we find within these concepts?

Temporal truths?

Jocariah

Jocariah:

I think you have a mixed view of what truth is. "A truth" does not go back to personal faith in some idea, but rather, in epistemological verification. What you are speaking about is perhaps better viewed as "tool". "Christianity is a great tool that we one day will no longer need when we go the next tool." If there are truths to be found in some Christian proclaimations, and that you propose that by adopting Christianity as a culture we have come closer to realizing the full extent of truth, then this does not demonstrate that Christianity is itself a truth, but again, only a useful tool to the attaining of truth. That is, a stepping stone on the winding road to the ultimate destination of full view of the truth. Similarly, the truth contained would be a truth independent of Christianity and independent of flux, only our preception of it would be refined through the adoption of more and more precise instruments to reach it.

Jocariah:

Then I must ask you to ponder this: Can anything which is in flux not depend on that which is not in two ways? That is, first that all states of flux depend on the non-fluxing moments, and two, that in order to remain in flux, it must have constancy? And in so doing, do not we find that the flux implies the non-fluxing aspect of truth?

..you mentioned this very thing in a prior post, which I found delightful indeed...very clever.

Cheers, Jocariah

Jocariah:

I think you have a mixed view of what truth is. "A truth" does not go back to personal faith in some idea, but rather, in epistemological verification. What you are speaking about is perhaps better viewed as "tool". "Christianity is a great tool that we one day will no longer need when we go the next tool." If there are truths to be found in some Christian proclaimations, and that you propose that by adopting Christianity as a culture we have come closer to realizing the full extent of truth, then this does not demonstrate that Christianity is itself a truth, but again, only a useful tool to the attaining of truth. That is, a stepping stone on the winding road to the ultimate destination of full view of the truth. Similarly, the truth contained would be a truth independent of Christianity and independent of flux, only our preception of it would be refined through the adoption of more and more precise instruments to reach it.


...once again, you have shown me that you are much better at splitting hairs than I ... and a much better editor, as well.

I much prefer your version than my own.

Cheers, Jocariah

.

Jocariah:

I am glad to have been able to render a service.