Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

I agree (conditionally) with all you say here.
My only proviso is that this notion:

needs some sort of support.

(I think that by this stage, it goes without saying that I cannot rationally agree to such a concept. But that's just me..)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But Lix you fail to understand that absolute truth can not have the "possibility" of being false. For if it did it would no longer be an absolute.
So therefore there is absolutely nothing to conclude except that you have been perceiving a falacy and now you perceive the truth [ acknowledgement and recognition is only a conclusion that you have been perceiving a falacy.]

Absolute truth offers no alternative as it is absolute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not just you but every mind on the planet that applies logic to what they perceive.

been thinking over night:

It is the nature of the mind to be this way, thus truth is an irrational or illogical concept as the logic of it is always unknown or unknowable as our knowledge grows.

To learn something new one must first accept that it appears to be illogical initially, accept that it is illogical and then learn the logic thus we acquire new methods and technology.

So absolute truth must be an irrational concept for our desire for the logic behind the things we are investigating is not logical until we find out how it is logical...

Illogicallity progresses to logicality
Chaos progresses to order
Confusion progresses to clarity
ignorance progresses to knowing

etc etc...
So realising the truth is to allow irrationality.

"The supremely arrogant person Jim, has to admit that he may be wrong and this is an irrational concept for Jim to consider"
For Jim to accept he may be wrong he has to consider what he would feel to be irrational. "What! I can't be wrong!!!"

Of course things exist that we are not aware of the logic for which is what fuels scientific research in the first place...

Exnihlo creation for example [ the creation of universe from nothing ] is an irrational/illogical concept until we learn how it can be rational.

see?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this is what makes you a good thinker. You allow your self to consider an irrational concept without the need to agree...until it becomes rational to you.... [ don't agree with others but seek agreement with self sort of thingo]

Open mindedness requires this

 

For example :
Exnihlo creation or should I say "creating" is a rational and logical statement to me yet of course it is irrational and illogical to others.

If I was to attempt to explain the logic I am comfortable with, the transitionary acceptance of irrationality would be a requirement of the reader or audience.
As this is currently not available due to scientific close mindedness, I can not explain adequately the logic behind it [ as I have found it to be ]

 

Therefore, complete wrong and illogical. While absolute truth has no possibility of being false, there are 2 possible conclusion an observer can have regarding a matter. Observer might conclude it is true or might conclude it is false.
You are completely missing this fact.

An observer's conclusion can be in line with absolute truth or not in line with absolute truth.

 

the absolute truth can never be concluded as false except by the observer who must be mistaken.

It is after all your perception that has concluded it to be false. This in no way renders an absolute truth as false but merely shows you to be mistaken in your conclusion, the falacy therefore lies with the observer and not the truth persee..

Tell me Lix just to make it clear how irrational you are...

How can an absolute truth be false?

If an observer concludes that an absolute truth is false then what does that say about the observer?

 

So Lix says " It is impossible for the universe to come into existence from absolutely nothing"

however the universe pipes up and says "uhm excuse me but I beg to differ!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This statement is absurd as absurd can get.
An observer can conclude an absolute truth as false. I have been saying this from the beginning. A conclusion that is not in line with truth is referred to as MISONCEPTION. What do you not understand about that?

To say that absolute truth can never be concluded as false unless someone is mistaken is not saying anything.

You seem to be oblivious of rules that I have posted and linked to for everybody. You then say something which the rules have already completely explaine as if it is something new.

1. Observers can have 2 states on a matter. Belief and inconclusion.
2. If observer has conclusion, observer must either have knowledge or misconception.

Do you not get that?

 

Logic and illogic are requirements for the truth in one logic to be a falsity in another, if the logics don't commute, they are also illogical, or not functionally equivalent in respect of each other.
Absolute truth implies absolute falsity, IOW.

2 is the only even prime number. It's also the first integer or 'whole' number (unlike its inverse 1/2), that is 'more' than one thing, that extends the notion of 'one' of something.
Also we tend to compare one of something, with one of something else to see how much it looks like the first. We also abstract certain quantities (as in the above, like temperature, pressure, and of course physics assumes time is linear) and compare them 2 at a time.

Temperature can be compared with many other things we call quantities, at a time, even excluding 'time'. Mass for instance, is a quantity, which apples are known to have.
Is it logical that there is no way however, to express the square root of 2, except as the hypotenuse of a right triangle with equal sides?

It can't be expressed as a ratio, of two other numbers, or two lines, or two curves or two shapes. It's irrational (irrotational). But it's nice and logical, but not rational. It can't be conceived a certain way, but has a simple geometric representation.

[ed: in trying to get back on the path, so to speak, I thought about this number 2, and that Buddhism says essentially that "desire and suffering are 2 things that commute with the same logic" or something.}

 

sorry uhm what were those rules you think I should follow again?

 

I thank you. It is only a pity that it is seemingly necessary to state the "bleedin' obvious" to some here (well, one actually). As a wise man once told me: if a man has no bank account, showering him with cash is still ultimately worthless if he does not understand the concept of money.

i.e. sometimes it really is a case of :wallbang:

Hmmm. I think I see what you're trying to say - but logic produces nothing - it merely helps us explore the simulation we have set up through our premises. We define the parameters, logic can lead us through.

Personally I wouldn't be so specific... I would say that logic provides (logical) conclusions about the what we are investigating. It can, and does, speak nothing of the objective/subjective nature of what we are investigating.

How do you distinguish "objective reality" from "absolute truth"? Are you using these terms synonymously? I know I might have been guilty of such.

Would you say mathematics and even logic itself are part of objective reality?

 

RULES

There is logic, metalogic, and illogic. The mind is only capable of comprehending logical concepts. Metalogic is any concept that is beyond logic such as infinity and paradoxes. The mind is incapable of comprehending metalogical concepts. Metalogical concepts can only be contemplated/discussed by approaching them as operating outside of logical parameters. Illogic is an approach to any subject matter with complete disregard to logic. Illogic cannot be contemplated or discussed.

Logic cannot be presumed. One must state (acknowledge) in advance that one is operating within the parameters of logic.


All statements are either true or false. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. A statement cannot be neither true or false at the same time.

Truth is independent of human perception/observation/acknowledgement. It is logically unsound for truth to be dependent on the observer.


An observer can only have 2 states on all matters. Belief and inconclusion.
1. Belief is a conclusion by an observer that a matter is true. If the observer concludes X is true, then the observer has belief that X is true.
2. Inconclusion is a lack of conclusion by an observer regarding a matter.

An observer cannot voluntarily choose a belief. An observer can only be involuntarily compelled to a belief.
Evidence/Proof/Justification/Verification/Validation/Substantiation is ANYTHING that compels an observer to arrive at a conclusion on a matter.


There are 2 forms of belief. Knowledge and Misconception. Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality. Misconception is a belief that does not correspond to actuality.
-If observer believes X is true.
-If X is true.
-Then observer has knowledge that X is true.

-If observer believes X is true.
-If X is not true.
-Then observer has misconception that X is true.

Belief must be either knowledge or misconception. Belief cannot be both knowledge and misconception. Belief cannot be neither knowledge or misconception.


If an observer believes a matter to be true, then the observer must claim to hold knowledge that the matter is true. The observer cannot claim to hold misconception that the matter is true. Observer cannot claim knowledge or misconception regarding a matter that an observer considers inconclusive.

OBSERVER: "I have concluded X is true. Thus, I have the belief that X is true. X is true. Because X is true, and I have belief X is true, then I have knowledge X is true."


Scope of belief is the body of all that the observer has concluded as true. Anything that the observer considers inconclusive falls outside of the observer’s scope of belief. Any matter than an observer concludes as true can only lie within the observer’s scope of belief.

"To my understanding…"
"As far as I know…"
"To my knowledge…"
“I believe…”
“In my opinion…”
These all mean the same thing “Within my scope of belief…”.
“IMO” <= Abbreviation for scope of belief.

These statements are always automatically implied for all statements and observer makes whether the observer speaks it out loud or not.
“X is true.” = “IMO X is true.”


Realization occurs when an observer is compelled to switch from a belief to that belief’s antithesis. “I believed X is true” => “I now believe not X is true”. When an observer has a belief, there is no such thing as possibility/impossibility of misconception. Just as an observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion, the observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion in antithesis of their belief.

Thus, there is no such thing as being open to change in position or not being open to change in position. If an observer is compelled to an antithesis position, the observer must switch to from their position to the antithesis position.

 

I was discussing buddist paradoxes with this buddist, and came accross this. It's the best website I've seen about buddism. It might be helpful for you people who are confused about buddist perspective. This sort of fits the description of this topic regarding regarding buddist perspective. I find these ideas of do difficulty, yet are often misinterpreted by all these buddist fanatics.

Buddism perspective is that everything comes from something else. Thus nothing actually exists independent of anything else. Everything depends on something.

 

Contradiction.

 

No.

 

Please refer to a dictionary for assistance.

 

You refer to dictionary for assistance.

 

Alas, I don't need to do such a thing to see the obvious contradiction in your statement.

 

If you coud be so kind ...as to provide a link to said web site?