by OldSoul 78 Replies latest jw friends
OS,
That was pretty good,,I guess we have to start somewhere,,and eventually even disguard all the mosaics,,at least that's what i think true enlightenment is. A sort of superconsciousness that transcends time and goes right to the center of everything with no future, no past, no time, no space, nothing but that truth.
frankiespeakin: eventually even disguard all the mosaics
See Steve? See why I keep hoping that tickling the outer edges of people's consciousness might help them dig in?
Frankiespeakin, that is exactly what I believe enlightenment to be, discarding the paradigms. I'm not sure yet whether the "transcendence" is inward, outward, or both, but it sure seems to be boundless whatever the case may be. It is a difficult thing to explain, sort of like trying to explain which way is up using purely rational proofs.
And it seems to me that when Pilate asked "What is truth?" (if, as Narkissos will be along to point out, that conversation ever took place), maybe Jesus didn't answer for a very simple reason. Maybe truth isn't a what.
The "maybe" was used in deference to six-of-nine <tips hat to six>. For anyone who doesn't know, I use "seems", "could be", "appears", "apparently", and "in my opinion" and other subjective phrasing liberally to convey the same idea as "maybe" sans redundancy.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
OS,
If you want to read something interesting read this book "spiritual emergency" I already started a thread on it but here's a amazon.com sample anyway:
And I for one, appreciate it, Old Soul. In all seriousness, it changes the tone (and apparent meaning) of your writing immensely. You sound more like a searcher than an.. than the alternative.
Re: "maybe", whatever concept the "truth as not a what" people are groping for (your characterization), the concept of "truth" is already well defined, and, those definitions work pretty well don't they? I'd hate to think that "truth" really was something as fluid as the borg wanted us to believe ;-). And just because we are more often wrong than right about truth; does not mean that the word is flawed or that the concept of the word needs to be given to another concept altogether, does it?
I guess what I'm groping for, is just what the feelings or "knowing" that you (and JT) speak of, have to do with "truth" in any commonly accepted form of the word?
six-of-nine: I guess what I'm groping for, is just what the feelings or "knowing" that you (and JT) speak of, have to do with "truth" in any commonly accepted form of the word?
I am glad that you are willing to discuss things like the concept of "truth" in commonly accepted and (hopefully) in uncommonly accepted forms of the word. I tried to describe the difficulty in explaining the "knowing" thing by comparing it to an exercise in objective explanation of the concept "up." "Up" is also a well defined concept and is, at the same time, an entirely abstract and relative concept from an objective standpoint.
Is it "in a higher position?" Sure. But that can only be determined in a relative sense and there is no objective point from which to begin determining height or distance, only arbitrary, abstract points. Most people have a very clear sense of what "up" means, but when asked to explain it objectively they run into problems immediately. In my opinion, truth is very much like that. Just as you "know" what "up" means but cannot explain it with purely objective proofs, you can "know" what truth means without being able to (or needing to) explain it to anyone else.
I agree that truth in an objective sense defies all commonly accepted definitions, since they all rely on relative perceptions to some degree or other. However, I believe there is no need to objectively define something for it to be real. "Up" exists, conceptually, to the same extent that temperature exists and wind exists. We readily accept these concepts as real although none of them can be objectively substantiated. They are abstract realities that help us comprehend our existence.
For what it's worth. And remember, opinions are to be valued at the recipient's discretion.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Six,
Glad to see you are back into the discussion.
Sorry if I was hard on you.
As to "Truth". Just a thought. Truth is a form of duality: Black/white, hot/cold, good/evil, truth/falsehood. These are all descriptions our reality and the extreme opposites make it easy to think ABSOLUTES are a vital part of our reality. It seems that physics has run into some problems with absolutes. What goes on at the subatomic level is better described by insurance actuarial tables rather that absolutes. Thus Heisenberg got a noble prize for his "Uncertainty Principle" that better explains reality at the subatomic level. Einstein's two theories on relativity devastated Newtonian determinism and "certainty".
Now it seems even "truth" is 'relative', relative to the observer.
Using OldSouls example of "up", a traveler in the space shuttle often has to look "up" to see the earth through the shuttle windshield. But every time I look at the ground (earth) from a high position I am looking down, not up. Obviously, in this case, "UP" (as truth) is relative to our perspective. In a spiritual context, perhaps perception is more relevant than truth.
Just my opinion.
Steve
the truth is that we will never know the answer to that question.
the truth is that we will never know the answer to that question. Perfectly put
