Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Yes, as I said earlier logic produces a simulcrum, a simulation of reality, a virtual existence but certainly not "the reality" so to speak.

Therefore I ask, is it possible to "find" or " percieve" objective reality with the use of logic?
According to the above "logic" or reasoning, No must be the only answer.
[back on thread track]

"Logic is the tool used for qualified speculation"
Like a gambler at the race track trying to assess the horses history and current condition, applying probablity and wallah! he has a potential winner.

It is the purpose of the thread to attempt to open up the possibility that objective reality is available if the use of logic and reason is "suspended" and that this approach is inspired by Buddhist philosophy.

so to answer the question:

"If objective reality is an actuality but is unavailable to human perception what is it that prevents us from discerning objective reality?"

I would answer: the use of logic and "reasoning"

If one suspends the use of logic then what are we left with?

I would answer : "self evident truth", "self evident reality", "self evident objectivity".

In other words:
"an apple is a thing we call "apple" because it is what it is and nothing more nor nothing less"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

logic is, for the intents of this thread, open to examination only in the context of how it may help us or inhibit us from perceiving objective reality.
well that was the intention any way.....


Provoker:

"It is understandable that conventional Western thought processes would find the idea of logic being an inhibitor, to be anathema to their entire lifestyle and way of life, so addicted to desire and the pleasures of "mental masturbation" that to let go of the craving for intellectual stimulation renders the ability to step out of the subjective "dream" and into psuedo objective reality virtually impossible."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do note however, that here, you assume that such a creature ('objective reality') exists.
Given that then, we need at the very least, some sort of operating definition, a means towards differentiating this notion from others of the sort...


Although this:

makes at least one comment on the nature of this purported 'objective reality'...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bugeye:

 

The point, that you appear to be missing, lix, is that logic is merely a tool - and to obtain truth at the output one must have truth as the input.

Indeed, I would go one further and posit that to get "objective truth" as an output, one must have "objective truth" as the input.

And if one can/must input "objective truth", one does not need logic to arrive at it.

I'm not saying I am "objectively correct", only that as of now I fail to see how logic can do as you describe. If you disagree with this, which I believe you will, please provide any example where you can use logic to arrive at a conclusion that does not take the truth of the base assumptions as given.

 

Firstly I would contend quite strongly that we are capable and in fact vigorous in our acceptance of "subjectivity" and in doing so by default are equally vigorous in our acceptance of objectivity.

To claim that subjectivity is all there is to our perceptions is by proxy a claim of objective reality that we simply can not see.
In other words we are as philosophers complaining about our denial of reality.
We have recognised our "denial of reality" and basically we are attempting to understand it.
We have recognised our self delusion so to speak, not unlike recognising that it is us that is reflected in the mirror.

If there was no debate about subjectivity / objectivity then we would probably use other words to describe the "is" so to speak.

Is this evidence of objective truth/ reality on it's own..? Obviously not!

Again the use of logic as per above will only render the objective truth impotent.

"As the dog chases it's tail endlessly trying to acquire the truth of who's tail it belongs to" ha


So in definition of Objective truth:

Is what ever is percieved with out the use of logic or reason to percieve it....

So the purposes of this thread is simply to put forward and clarify this notion which has yet to be validated [if at all possible]:

That the absolute truth or objective reality is unavailable to be percieved intellectually due to the use of logic to arrive at it.
And that absolute truth is not obligated to be something of intellectual value.

Note the emphasis on the word "intellectually"
The purpose of this thread is to clearly identify and attempt to understand the main obstacle to perception of objective reality.

 

ahhh now we are talking!

"ve vork too hard to see vat ve see!"

 

You can also, as you note later, question why you can ask this question.

Well, logically, I suppose that is true.

"Speculation is a gamble", implies that every query is also a risk, or involves at least the possibility that the query will not be answered. This is an axiom of the idea of universal 'information' - it can be "lost", irretrievably or irreversibly. Reversibility implies a certain Boolean logic predicate.

Yes, I agree with that - but can we know this is the case - is valid as I said, in a 'null-logic'?

Yes, logically that is the result of not applying logic.

Seeing the objective 'without applying' a logic to it? Can we imply the existence of logic, because there is something which it 'derives' from which is then 'required' to be the opposite of logic (whatever that is)?

 

The clue I got to all this happened about 18 years ago in a Buddhist Temple when I had virtually no interest in philosophy...a tourist just admiring the temple in Singapore.

I was handed a brochure that included n the front cover the English translation of the "Diamond Sutra" which is considered to be one of the hardest Buddhist sutras to grasp as it clearly states that to grasp something with the intellect is to loose it to reductionism.

Simply put the mind takes control of what it possesses and immediately bends it to suit it's needs which is why according to Buddhist doctrine objective reality is unavailable due to "desire" [ suffering ] and the desire [ suffering ] to relieve that sufferance. [ it is the nature of suffering [ desire] to seek relief.]
So the Buddhist devotee strives to eradicate desire from their lives so that they can see reality for what it truly is.

Which is self nihilistic or ego destructive.

 

I have a bad feeling about this...

... where this is leading...

... that the only thing we are capable of perceiving as objective reality is our own consciousness? (Tell me it isn't so!)

Everything else is second-hand information to our consciousness, and thus subject to our selves.

And I'm not speaking of "consciousness" as a separate mystical non-material entity mumbo-jumbo malarky - although if that is your bag, so to speak, I suggest you pick it up before it is detonated in a controlled explosion for the safety of other passengers.

 

Whatt'd I say from the get-go

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

now this is an interesting line of enquiry.....hmmm
Care to explain it more? [ I understand it as something that has evolved in this discussion so take you time]

 

Actually you are almost right on the ball with this post IMO.

Pure conscious awareness, aka self awareness with out effort to provoke change or manipuate information.
"How a rock sees a rock" sort of thing.
Universal consciousness according to Buddhist thought.

 

ha....

 

now that's something to think about...hmmmmm

 

I fear the same as well..

If this is the case though, then it is, by definition, subjective.

As is our consciousness..

Fair enough.

But the trick then, is to differentiate this from 'ordinary' subjective consciousness.

(Which I think is impossible....)

 

ha..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I never caught that aspect.

 

Fortunately there is some solution here- but, it would require further enquiery.

 

It is I believe to be virtually impossible to differentiate and in fact I would go on to add that this is the fundamental reason why Buddhist thought ultimately fails to be successful in practice.
However the Buddhist theory on the reductional nature of the intellect is fascinating and to my experience quite profound.

The idea of Buddhism is to annihilate the cycle of desire and relief of desire [ Samsara ] which is impossible for to do so is to annihilate the universe.
How ever mastery of Samsara is possible [ yogic principles ]

In other words allow both subjective and objective to co-exit in a balance that produces the results you want...

Sounds typical of Western life style and the struggle for a better way of life [ happiness] yes?