|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 9, 2009 16:35:01 GMT -5
How do you define it?
Have you experienced it?
I define it as a morsel, nugget or even blockbuster truth that you obtain through no outside influence.
NO text, NO speech, NO other stimuli, except maybe nature has contributed to this knowledge you have.
Has God revealed something to you that you'd never heard before that was confirmed later?
What truth or truths do you hold onto now that you know without a shadow of a doubt was not heard or read by you beforehand?
I mean apparently this is possible, right? Someone in ancient past was able to receive true knowledge to share with others, that resonated as truth, right? Doesn't this still happen? We have self-help books and get rich programs created everyday.
What is your truth that you can share with the world? The thing that if you share it, no one could say, "dah! heard it all before! Doocy the wino says that everyday on the corner."
(sidenote: I understand there are some enterprising people on the board, so if I'm infringing upon your intellectual property or that next book deal...I guess, nevermind).
When I read the potpourri of topics on the Talk Religion section, I marvel at the amount of information that I hadn't heard before, and wrestle with how to square it with the "truths" I already know. Then I examine the source of my truths.
Which again leads me to that question, what TRUE revelation have you had that wasn't learned from an outside influence?
Interested to read responses, if there are any...
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 10, 2009 18:44:34 GMT -5
Have you experienced it?
I believe so.
Has God revealed something to you that you'd never heard before that was confirmed later?
I think so.
What truth or truths do you hold onto now that you know without a shadow of a doubt was not heard or read by you beforehand?
Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth, Manifestations of God, Zero Theory, The Israel Hypothesis, Necessity of Faith Theory. Fairly sure I never read any of these things anywhere
What is your truth that you can share with the world? The thing that if you share it, no one could say, "dah! heard it all before! Doocy the wino says that everyday on the corner."
All the above theories
Which again leads me to that question, what TRUE revelation have you had that wasn't learned from an outside influence?
I believe God is figuratively, metaphorically, and literally, the Truth. So in my opinion to have truly had a revelation, one must have had a brush with Truth, and by this paradigm the influence is always external (save the notion that God actually lives in us - and even that requires a determination of, "does living in us, mean God is "of" us".) In any event I regard the acquisition of knowledge (or revelation) to be imparted by God, and as I am not God, then that knowledge came externally. Does that make sense? Holla back.
What have you heard here that has made you re-examine your truths?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 14:33:45 GMT -5
Have you experienced it? I believe so.Has God revealed something to you that you'd never heard before that was confirmed later? I think so. What truth or truths do you hold onto now that you know without a shadow of a doubt was not heard or read by you beforehand? Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth, Manifestations of God, Zero Theory, The Israel Hypothesis, Necessity of Faith Theory. Fairly sure I never read any of these things anywhereWhat is your truth that you can share with the world? The thing that if you share it, no one could say, "dah! heard it all before! Doocy the wino says that everyday on the corner." All the above theoriesWhich again leads me to that question, what TRUE revelation have you had that wasn't learned from an outside influence? I believe God is figuratively, metaphorically, and literally, the Truth. So in my opinion to have truly had a revelation, one must have had a brush with Truth, and by this paradigm the influence is always external (save the notion that God actually lives in us - and even that requires a determination of, "does living in us, mean God is "of" us".) In any event I regard the acquisition of knowledge (or revelation) to be imparted by God, and as I am not God, then that knowledge came externally. Does that make sense? Holla back.
What have you heard here that has made you re-examine your truths? The problem with this conversation is...I think there is a point to be made here, I'm just not ready to make it yet, because it eludes me. I feel continuing this exercise will only lead me to more questions, less answers. However, continue it I shall. I will try to be as clear as possible with this, but please follow up if it is not. Your explanation definitely makes sense. I guess in addition to nature, I should have included God, because that is definitely an outside influence. Yet as you say, if God is Truth and one does believe the existence of God extends inside them, making them a son of God, then are they Truth as well? (ehh nevermind...off topic). Most everything I KNOW about God, the universe and life is my TRUTH. However, I must admit that TRUTH only squares when I weigh it against certain texts read or speeches heard throughout my life. It doesn't necessarily agree with what others assert as TRUTH. Why is that? Is not TRUTH, TRUTH? Interesting how you couch your responses with "I believe" or "I think." Those modifiers don't give that definitive assurance of a revelation that I'm asking for. Granted...everything I hold as true is only what I think or believe as well, so I'm not faulting you for that. Therein lies my quandary. What a wonderful gift faith can be, but what a torturous curse it can be also! If the only judge I can rely upon to measure or claim truth is me, that's a fallible judgment system and requires me to only think or believe, not know, an essence of faith. Yes, I can use the Bible, the Qur'an, the Mormon Bible, a Sutra, the Book of the Dead, The Origin of Species, Euclid's Elements or other texts with which to measure that faith, but again, that employs the use of an external influence by which to judge. ALL of those texts in places are seemingly fantastic, but EVERY constituent holds the teachings within them to be TRUTH. To answer your question, no particular post or thread has made me take this line of questioning. It is the totality of experiences and assertions referenced on this board and other places...regarding ancient history, different religions, just different perspectives all presented as statements of truth or revelation. If what I judge to be true is true, then everything else is a lie, correct? Same goes for what you believe or what others believe. The moment another person claims anything which sits in opposition to what I judge as true, then I must determine it a lie absolutely, or realize what I "knew" as true to be a lie. Such is life, I know, but without being willing to say, "This I know is true, and everything else is a lie," there can be no assurances. As we know, those that express themselves absolutely, can be extreme and are labeled dogmatic, impractical and can cause a lot of strife in THIS world. So maybe that's my answer, this exercise is pointless because I don't at this point wish to become a radical extremist.  Interested to read other takes on this as well. You answerin'...I'm exalting' |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 11, 2009 15:34:14 GMT -5
There's this saying I'm fond of (I haven't actually heard anyone else say it, but I don't know that that means I invented it): Unless you know everything, you don't really know anything
That is the core principle behind the theory which I call "The Necessity of Faith". If you were in outer space and you threw a baseball - would it be headed north, south, east, or west...? You couldn't ever be sure because you would have to know what is absolutely north, south, east and west. Take a step further (as you aptly pointed out) your observation of the path of the baseball is only as accurate as the system you used to observe it, your eyes, your mind. If they are somehow flawed or compromised then maybe you're not seeing the path correctly (or seeing it at all)... you don't know. So in the truest sense of the word, I don't think anyone "KNOWS" anything. They believe, they suspect, they have reason to suspect... but unless they know EVERYTHING "Absolute Truth" they don't really know anything. They only know "Relative Truth". As best I can tell my screenname is Damie. If I am actually plugged into a matrix somewhere and my name is really GORP-727 and I'm a supercharged toaster oven I am unaware of it. It is that uncertainty, that mandates that my truths can only be relative. That doesn't preclude the existence of an "Absolute Truth" - but that Absolute Truth consists of infinite information - and I believe that to be unknowable by any mere mortal.
Infinite information being - everything there ever was, is, or could be to know. How many Pine Needles fell off the 4th branch of the tree next to my neighbor's house inbetween August and December in 2002 as a result of high force winds, to what was the temperature of the Indian Ocean 32 feet away from the surface off the coast of the Maldives Island in 1828. Infinite information. To know it all at once is a, IMO, a manifestation of God. It is beyond my reach so I cannot know everything. If I cannot know everything, I can't really be sure of anything. Thus the necessity of faith. We all operate out of it - it's just that some people believe they don't.
So to caveat my earlier statement, I have relative truths... they are only as accurate as the boundaries conditions and the assumptions I necessarily and sometimes subconsciously make. The best you can have, IMO, is relative truths - and they can all co-exist technically, because no one can prove that they are right, they simply have whatever foundation they have to believe so.
That make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 16:38:25 GMT -5
There's this saying I'm fond of (I haven't actually heard anyone else say it, but I don't know that that means I invented it): Unless you know everything, you don't really know anything
So to caveat my earlier statement, I have relative truths... they are only as accurate as the boundaries conditions and the assumptions I necessarily and sometimes subconsciously make. The best you can have, IMO, is relative truths - and they can all co-exist technically, because no one can prove that they are right, they simply have whatever foundation they have to believe so.
That make sense? Yes, it make sense. I guess it doesn't help. Yes, they can coexist, but can they coexist as TRUTH? Are relative truths enough for you? If so, why? Also, don't think I disregard your necessity of Faith Theory. It is an interesting concept. It just raises the question for me who WANTS to have the infinite truth you describe? I'd hate to have to know how many ingrown toenails, Horace Jefferson's 5th grade teacher had in 1904. Who is Horace Jefferson? hell if I know. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 11, 2009 17:13:46 GMT -5
There's this saying I'm fond of (I haven't actually heard anyone else say it, but I don't know that that means I invented it): Unless you know everything, you don't really know anything
So to caveat my earlier statement, I have relative truths... they are only as accurate as the boundaries conditions and the assumptions I necessarily and sometimes subconsciously make. The best you can have, IMO, is relative truths - and they can all co-exist technically, because no one can prove that they are right, they simply have whatever foundation they have to believe so.
That make sense? Yes, it make sense. I guess it doesn't help. Yes, they can coexist, but can they coexist as TRUTH? Are relative truths enough for you? If so, why? Also, don't think I disregard your necessity of Faith Theory. It is an interesting concept. It just raises the question for me who WANTS to have the infinite truth you describe? I'd hate to have to know how many ingrown toenails, Horace Jefferson's 5th grade teacher had in 1904. Who is Horace Jefferson? hell if I know.
You may not necessarily want infinite knowledge - but logically any entity that knows everything, surely can know just one thing. But an entity that just knows one thing, can't actually be sure that they even know that thing (let alone anything else). So I guess my question in return would be, if my assumption is correct and you must know everything in order to know any 1 thing...
...are you sure YOU really want absolute truth? |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 17:40:04 GMT -5
As you describe absolute truth, NO, I don't want that.
Also, the truth I seek is not to know that the keyboard I'm using to type this message is black, based upon the definition of black - the color that supposedly emits or reflects no part of the visible spectrum, learned in grade school and from my mama. That definition of black in itself is a contradiction to me, because it is most definitely reflecting a color to the lens of my eye...
I don't wish to know it, because this seems a very minute piece of trivia to know, when it concerns the essence of our existence.
However, I would be satisfied if that were an absolute truth. I wish to know one thing that cannot be disputed. I don't believe I will get it here, but I wondered if anyone else had received it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 18:00:40 GMT -5
I don't think I have any. Even the most profound insights that I have are view and interpreted through a lens that was given to me and through the premises of a school of thought that was learned or taught to me. I find it interesting that you chose nature to be the exceptional stimuli. Why is this?... if you do not mind me asking How do you define it? Have you experienced it? I define it as a morsel, nugget or even blockbuster truth that you obtain through no outside influence. NO text, NO speech, NO other stimuli, except maybe nature has contributed to this knowledge you have. Has God revealed something to you that you'd never heard before that was confirmed later? What truth or truths do you hold onto now that you know without a shadow of a doubt was not heard or read by you beforehand? I mean apparently this is possible, right? Someone in ancient past was able to receive true knowledge to share with others, that resonated as truth, right? Doesn't this still happen? We have self-help books and get rich programs created everyday. What is your truth that you can share with the world? The thing that if you share it, no one could say, "dah! heard it all before! Doocy the wino says that everyday on the corner." (sidenote: I understand there are some enterprising people on the board, so if I'm infringing upon your intellectual property or that next book deal...I guess, nevermind). When I read the potpourri of topics on the Talk Religion section, I marvel at the amount of information that I hadn't heard before, and wrestle with how to square it with the "truths" I already know. Then I examine the source of my truths. Which again leads me to that question, what TRUE revelation have you had that wasn't learned from an outside influence? Interested to read responses, if there are any... |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 18:07:17 GMT -5
I don't think I have any. Even the most profound insights that I have are view and interpreted through a lens that was given to me and through the premises of a school of thought that was learned or taught to me. I find it interesting that you chose nature to be the exceptional stimuli. Why is this?... if you do not mind me asking as I corrected later, nature or God. The reason I chose nature is because I concede that you must use some external ruler or guide to judge your truth, unless you ARE God, and nature and God appear to be the only external stimuli not created by or inherently influenced by man. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 18:08:27 GMT -5
Amen to this post. And exalt. Seek the truth and ye shall find it...correct? But what if you find that which you seek does not exist? Would you be disappointed? Would you be satisfied? In answering those questions do you still believe it is truth that you seek? In the end how will you know if that which you sought and found is actually the truth? As you describe absolute truth, NO, I don't want that. Also, the truth I seek is not to know that the keyboard I'm using to type this message is black, based upon the definition of black - the color that supposedly emits or reflects no part of the visible spectrum, learned in grade school and from my mama. That definition of black in itself is a contradiction to me, because it is most definitely reflecting a color to the lens of my eye... I don't wish to know it, because this seems a very minute piece of trivia to know, when it concerns the essence of our existence. However, I would be satisfied if that were an absolute truth. I wish to know one thing that cannot be disputed. I don't believe I will get it here, but I wondered if anyone else had received it. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 18:12:30 GMT -5
One more thing. It is constantly being revealed to me the importance of balance. In all things in this life there is balancing force; the good the bad ---the positive to the negative. So my revelation is that anything that does not exist in balance is inconsistent.
Going back to what you were saying about truth...something must be completely true or it is a lie----do you find a sense of balance in that theory?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 18:30:23 GMT -5
Amen to this post. And exalt. Seek the truth and ye shall find it...correct? But what if you find that which you seek does not exist? Would you be disappointed? Would you be satisfied? In answering those questions do you still believe it is truth that you seek? In the end how will you know if that which you sought and found is actually the truth? Well, the Bible says, "...Seek and ye shall find..." Matthew 7:7. Unfortunately, the KJV doesn't explicitly say what to seek, so we can only assume it is whatever we are looking for, God, Truth, happiness, etc. I haven't seen any other translation which defines it explicitly either. In short, yes it is truth I seek. I believe any path you travel is for an answer whether it jibes with your prejudiced notions or not. Any reason you ask a question, walk a path, have a conversation is to get an answer, I would add, a true answer. Certainly you wouldn't engage in an endeavor just to arrive at a lie, unless you knew a lie would lead you to another truth. To answer your questions, I think it's impossible for truth not to exist. I can, however, discover that MY truth doesn't exist. If I arrive at an answer only to find that what I held to be true is no longer, then my truth changes empirically. Would I be disappointed, at this point no, but I would be satisfied. I guess your last question is the question I've posed to the board. What is that true revelation you've received and can you share how you received it? I don't have a good answer for that right now. BTW, I assume the exalt you speak of is relative and not absolute since my number didn't change...  |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 11, 2009 18:42:28 GMT -5
One more thing. It is constantly being revealed to me the importance of balance. In all things in this life there is balancing force; the good the bad ---the positive to the negative. So my revelation is that anything that does not exist in balance is inconsistent. Going back to what you were saying about truth...something must be completely true or it is a lie----do you find a sense of balance in that theory? Not necessarily a balance in a sense that there is a one to one ratio, because I believe there are more lies than truth. However, valid balance is knowing the truth. TRUTH balances all, right? On a scale every lie stacked can never outweigh one TRUTH. For instance, if looking at a standard six-sided playing die, and an infinite number of statements are made regarding the dots on the die, "there are n dots on this die." They all fail when opposed to the true statement of, "there are 21 dots on this die," right? Now if I find out that what I deem as the number 21 is really 56, then my Truth regarding the number 21 must change, and the Truth regarding the die must change. A new statement emerges as truth, and the 21 dot statement becomes a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 18:45:17 GMT -5
What is it about both God and nature that convices you that they are not created or inherently influenced by man? I don't think I have any. Even the most profound insights that I have are view and interpreted through a lens that was given to me and through the premises of a school of thought that was learned or taught to me. I find it interesting that you chose nature to be the exceptional stimuli. Why is this?... if you do not mind me asking as I corrected later, nature or God. The reason I chose nature is because I concede that you must use some external ruler or guide to judge your truth, unless you ARE God, and nature and God appear to be the only external stimuli not created by or inherently influenced by man. |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 19:05:59 GMT -5
LOL I gotchu! I gotchu. You should see a favorable increase immediately.  This is where we have to ask what is truth? When and how are things made true? If a myth is created and it exists for generations as an actually occurance--- does it therefore become true? Amen to this post. And exalt. Seek the truth and ye shall find it...correct? But what if you find that which you seek does not exist? Would you be disappointed? Would you be satisfied? In answering those questions do you still believe it is truth that you seek? In the end how will you know if that which you sought and found is actually the truth? Well, the Bible says, "...Seek and ye shall find..." Matthew 7:7. Unfortunately, the KJV doesn't explicitly say what to seek, so we can only assume it is whatever we are looking for, God, Truth, happiness, etc. I haven't seen any other translation which defines it explicitly either. In short, yes it is truth I seek. I believe any path you travel is for an answer whether it jibes with your prejudiced notions or not. Any reason you ask a question, walk a path, have a conversation is to get an answer, I would add, a true answer. Certainly you wouldn't engage in an endeavor just to arrive at a lie, unless you knew a lie would lead you to another truth. To answer your questions, I think it's impossible for truth not to exist. I can, however, discover that MY truth doesn't exist. If I arrive at an answer only to find that what I held to be true is no longer, then my truth changes empirically. Would I be disappointed, at this point no, but I would be satisfied. I guess your last question is the question I've posed to the board. What is that true revelation you've received and can you share how you received it? I don't have a good answer for that right now. BTW, I assume the exalt you speak of is relative and not absolute since my number didn't change... |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 11, 2009 19:30:04 GMT -5
Then what you are saying is that truth is indeed relative, which is not consistent with what we believe about truth. If truth is contingent upon variables then doesn't that make truth provisional? That which is absolute can not be changed, because it is unlimited. That which is unlimited is not conditional. Therefore that which is conditional is not truth. Which leads to the question of how can there be one=(limit, value, containtment) possible truth? How can there be a contained truth, if truth is indeed unlimited? If everything that we can naturally conceive in our finite human capability is conditional---then perhaps we our very selves are not capable of knowing the truth OR we simply can not undestand truth. If that is the case, then what we think is truth is actually something else . It is the something else that we ultimately seek. One more thing. It is constantly being revealed to me the importance of balance. In all things in this life there is balancing force; the good the bad ---the positive to the negative. So my revelation is that anything that does not exist in balance is inconsistent. Going back to what you were saying about truth...something must be completely true or it is a lie----do you find a sense of balance in that theory? Not necessarily a balance in a sense that there is a one to one ratio, because I believe there are more lies than truth. However, valid balance is knowing the truth. TRUTH balances all, right? On a scale every lie stacked can never outweigh one TRUTH. For instance, if looking at a standard six-sided playing die, and an infinite number of statements are made regarding the dots on the die, "there are n dots on this die." They all fail when opposed to the true statement of, "there are 21 dots on this die," right? Now if I find out that what I deem as the number 21 is really 56, then my Truth regarding the number 21 must change, and the Truth regarding the die must change. A new statement emerges as truth, and the 21 dot statement becomes a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 12, 2009 13:26:43 GMT -5
What is it about both God and nature that convices you that they are not created or inherently influenced by man? as I corrected later, nature or God. The reason I chose nature is because I concede that you must use some external ruler or guide to judge your truth, unless you ARE God, and nature and God appear to be the only external stimuli not created by or inherently influenced by man. I can't say that in every instance both God and nature haven't been created and/or contaminated by man, however, they appear to hold some sort of constant that can somewhat be reliable for seeking knowledge |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 12, 2009 13:37:30 GMT -5
As you describe absolute truth, NO, I don't want that. Also, the truth I seek is not to know that the keyboard I'm using to type this message is black, based upon the definition of black - the color that supposedly emits or reflects no part of the visible spectrum, learned in grade school and from my mama. That definition of black in itself is a contradiction to me, because it is most definitely reflecting a color to the lens of my eye... I don't wish to know it, because this seems a very minute piece of trivia to know, when it concerns the essence of our existence. However, I would be satisfied if that were an absolute truth. I wish to know one thing that cannot be disputed. I don't believe I will get it here, but I wondered if anyone else had received it. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 12, 2009 15:23:42 GMT -5
Do you disagree with the logic that in knowing everything, it can be said that you also know any one particular thing (or truth)? If you know everything there is about everything, can't you say (for example) which "belief system" is the correct "belief system" (i.e. the truth)? No, I don't disagree with that assertion. Obviously, if you know everything there is to know, you have no questions or desire to know only one thing. I also can't say with certainty that I feel that is the ONLY way to know a truth. Through your own recognition, it is possible to understand a truth without knowing everything. You realized the "Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth, Manifestations of God, Zero Theory, The Israel Hypothesis, and the Necessity of Faith Theory," you believe you can arrive at a sense of truth without knowing the ABSOLUTE Truth. Therefore, my path or destination is not Absolute truth as you describe it. I'd prefer to stay agnostic on that issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 12, 2009 16:31:58 GMT -5
LOL I gotchu! I gotchu. You should see a favorable increase immediately. This is where we have to ask what is truth? When and how are things made true? If a myth is created and it exists for generations as an actually occurance--- does it therefore become true? I guess my definition of truth would be a statement, awareness, or state of being that is in accord or agreement with a particular fact or reality. You arrive at that truth by testing it against certain givens that you have already identified as true. I do not believe that time heals all lies. It is still a lie. For centuries people believed the world was flat and that the universe orbited the earth. The fact that belief existed for years did not make it true. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 12, 2009 16:48:07 GMT -5
Then what you are saying is that truth is indeed relative, which is not consistent with what we believe about truth.
What do WE believe about truth? I'm not sure I understand your perspective...
If truth is contingent upon variables then doesn't that make truth provisional?
I don't think truth is ever contingent upon variables, only constants or other "truths."
That which is absolute can not be changed, because it is unlimited.
That which is unlimited is not conditional. Therefore that which is conditional is not truth.
If it is conditional upon another truth, why couldn't it be truth?
Which leads to the question of how can there be one=(limit, value, containtment) possible truth? How can there be a contained truth, if truth is indeed unlimited?
Absolute truth should be able to verify limited truth, so limited truth can exist absent of absolute truth.
If everything that we can naturally conceive in our finite human capability is conditional---then perhaps we our very selves are not capable of knowing the truth OR we simply can not undestand truth.
If that is the case, then what we think is truth is actually something else . It is the something else that we ultimately seek.
Some would say while our physical bodies are finite, our spiritual being, if you so believe we have one, is eternal. Therefore we have the capability to recognize the truth you're discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Dec 13, 2009 9:53:29 GMT -5
Oh I don't really have a firm perspective, here---just questions. When I said "we" I was including what has been discussed here in this thread. The theme in this thread is that truth is absolute or that there is an absolute truth<---that is probably more accurate.
Are our minds apart of our finite bodies or our spiritual beings? If we are trying to understand things with our mind and our human capabilities I do not believe we are operating in our eternal spiritual being.
I guess I would also have to understand if our spiritual being is actually fully activated once it is outside of the body. If it activated now, while in the body---then why is our spirit not capable of doing infinate/eternal things while in the body?
Or is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 14, 2009 8:52:50 GMT -5
No, I don't disagree with that assertion. Obviously, if you know everything there is to know, you have no questions or desire to know only one thing. I also can't say with certainty that I feel that is the ONLY way to know a truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 14, 2009 13:48:13 GMT -5
Well I can't argue what you feel, but I would certainly be interested in hearing what other ways there are to KNOW a truth. I maintain that you can certainly hold any belief without complete knowledge of all creation, but it seems a little counter-intuitive to say that I can absolutely know something, without having some sort of absolute knowledge, I'm not sure (if at least from a logical construct) that they can be decoupled. Good stuff. I understand your points. So your belief is that faith is inevitable no matter your belief system, because you can in no way have absolute certainty about any one "truth." Correct? Curious, as you evaluated your spontaneous thoughts from different perspectives, (and I assume they still held true since you believe they are revelation), how did particular religious belief systems hold up to the scrutiny? |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 14, 2009 18:18:43 GMT -5
Well I can't argue what you feel, but I would certainly be interested in hearing what other ways there are to KNOW a truth. I maintain that you can certainly hold any belief without complete knowledge of all creation, but it seems a little counter-intuitive to say that I can absolutely know something, without having some sort of absolute knowledge, I'm not sure (if at least from a logical construct) that they can be decoupled. Good stuff. I understand your points. So your belief is that faith is inevitable no matter your belief system, because you can in no way have absolute certainty about any one "truth." Correct? Curious, as you evaluated your spontaneous thoughts from different perspectives, (and I assume they still held true since you believe they are revelation), how did particular religious belief systems hold up to the scrutiny?
By the time you get to the book of Ecclesiastes and they start talking about "Vanity of Vanities" I could see how it related all the way back to absolute knowledge. To me, obtaining absolute truth is an intellectual Tower of Babel. It is a corporeal activity meant to reach celestial heights (which you simply cannot reach - figuratively and literally) and what's more it's not important.
That's not to say that the truth isn't important, it's to say that our application of the truths that ARE available to us (even if they can only be said to be relative truths) are infinitely more important and useful - then the pursuit of things that are simply beyond us. We have all acknowledged that we, and the truths that we discern, are only as good as the minds that perceive and understand them.
That being the case, I see the Tower of Babel and conclude it isn't just a tower - it is a symbol. It represents human vanity of every stripe; like the illusion of control, the illusion of power, the illusion of knowledge. In the same way they attempt to build their way to God and Truth in Babel, so too do some scientists believe that they can research and experiment their way to God and Truth... and of course they cannot. We don't have any certifiable knowledge, anymore than we have certifiable power, or certifiable control. It's all an illusion. Investment in their pursuits (in my opinion) is all vanity. That's not to say that science is a waste of time, it's to say the belief that science equals truth (which many hold) is equal folly to the belief that you can build your way to God.
Ironically, IMO the truths that are available to us, seem to require some degree of faith (or knowledge without specific proof) just as much as it requires some critical peer review.
Beyond belief systems there are philosophies that cannot be entirely proven or disproven, but can be subjected to some peer review. Getting an actual definitive answer need not be the goal for a review of the principles to take place.
Think about it, it's exactly what we're doing right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 17, 2009 13:10:17 GMT -5
Funny, I disagree that we're discussing blueprints for a Tower of Babel, but we have ventured down a path different from the original conversation.
You definitely answered the question of "Have you had a 'true' revelation?" I guess it inevitably leads to the next question of, "How did you know?"
Are you saying that you believe the spontaneous thoughts you had were given to you and not created internally, or built upon years of life experience? and if it was given, you believe the giver was God, or Truth?
You mentioned a "faith in that spontanaeity..." Is that because you feel that you can only gain knowledge if it is given to you?
Again, not a critique of your own scientual discovery process, just gaining a better understanding of my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 17, 2009 15:16:08 GMT -5
To clarify, I am suggesting we are involved in a discussion where I believe there is little expectation that the ulimate (absolute) truth will be revealed at the conclusion, nor is it the goal, and yet the conversation that we have is still useful - still able to potentially provide insights.
Conversely if you entered this thread thinking that somehow the secret of all secret or the truth of all truths was going to be revealed, then yes, this would be an intellectual Tower of Babel (or a wild goose chase if you prefer a more secular reference).
I believe some thoughts to be a revelation because of the way that it happens and the frequency in which it happens. For Zero theory for example... when the initial idea came to me, literally a flood of ideas followed immediately the first. It was almost like hearing 100 people talking to you at the same time and trying to hear and remember everything that was said. For me that is atypical. I do not credit myself or necessarily my life experience with the thought.
To answer your other question, that's not the same (to me as saying) there IS no other way of learning... but there is definitely something different about how I acquire the information in what I feel is a revelation versus me just studying.
A return set of questions - what do you feel is the purpose of your examination of the topic? Is it all internally driven? Is it influenced at all by what you perceive to be a higher power?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Dec 17, 2009 18:24:29 GMT -5
I believe some thoughts to be a revelation because of the way that it happens and the frequency in which it happens. For Zero theory for example... when the initial idea came to me, literally a flood of ideas followed immediately the first. It was almost like hearing 100 people talking to you at the same time and trying to hear and remember everything that was said. For me that is atypical. I do not credit myself or necessarily my life experience with the thought.
To answer your other question, that's not the same (to me as saying) there IS no other way of learning... but there is definitely something different about how I acquire the information in what I feel is a revelation versus me just studying.
A return set of questions - what do you feel is the purpose of your examination of the topic? Is it all internally driven? Is it influenced at all by what you perceive to be a higher power?I believe I have experienced similar occurences of the "flood" of info you mentioned. For me, almost too much information, that I only retained a portion of what I saw/heard/experienced. However, as I recall each of those "revelations" happened during or after reading/meditating on a certain text or after hearing someone speak. I guess I wondered if anyone had that experience separate from that. At this point my motivation for this discussion is only for selfish reasons, but if someone benefits from the exploration, I'm glad to have helped. I do believe the pursuit is triggered by an external influence. I'm not ready to say a "Higher" power yet or not. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 18, 2009 2:45:53 GMT -5
I believe some thoughts to be a revelation because of the way that it happens and the frequency in which it happens. For Zero theory for example... when the initial idea came to me, literally a flood of ideas followed immediately the first. It was almost like hearing 100 people talking to you at the same time and trying to hear and remember everything that was said. For me that is atypical. I do not credit myself or necessarily my life experience with the thought.
To answer your other question, that's not the same (to me as saying) there IS no other way of learning... but there is definitely something different about how I acquire the information in what I feel is a revelation versus me just studying.
A return set of questions - what do you feel is the purpose of your examination of the topic? Is it all internally driven? Is it influenced at all by what you perceive to be a higher power?I believe I have experienced similar occurences of the "flood" of info you mentioned. For me, almost too much information, that I only retained a portion of what I saw/heard/experienced. However, as I recall each of those "revelations" happened during or after reading/meditating on a certain text or after hearing someone speak. I guess I wondered if anyone had that experience separate from that. At this point my motivation for this discussion is only for selfish reasons, but if someone benefits from the exploration, I'm glad to have helped. I do believe the pursuit is triggered by an external influence. I'm not ready to say a "Higher" power yet or not.
I know what your motivation was (you mentioned it in your first post) but what is your hope? What is your goal? These are just questions of curiosity - not questions intended to point out some flaw in your motivation or hope.
Also... what does it say to you, that you were not the only person to have experience "the flood"? Is it worth noting that a fairly atypical experience was nonetheless encountered by two independent parties, with the same end state in both instances? Are you willing to attribute this to simple coincidence? Again - just honest questions. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 18, 2009 2:55:12 GMT -5
Also if "the flood" doesn't come from a higher power, where would you speculate it comes from? If external - then from what source?
|
|
