How is this any different than saying that the universe is filled with information/facts that is the answer to some question? — Harry Hindu

The Universe is not filled with facts. Facts are constructs of the mind. And they can only be considered 'Facts" if they contain 'truths. And 'truths' solve problems or answer questions.

The Big Bang start highly ordered with a high level of energy (low entropy). As the Universe cools down energy coagulates into matter: first pure light and then the heavier elements hydrogen, helium...etc. As it cools down from it's highly ordered high energy state in the same way as steam as it loses energy turns to water and then into ice so the Universe becomes more disordered (as all the different elements are formed it becomes more chaotic, increased entropy). If you could cool it down to absolute zero it would cease to exist. That is where our Universe is heading according to latest theory.

For I provided an argument in support of the view that a proposition is true when Reason asserts its content to be the case. — Bartricks

A proposition is true when it is able to solve a problem or answer a question.

1.3 Pragmatist theories
A different perspective on truth was offered by the American pragmatists. As with the neo-classical correspondence and coherence theories, the pragmatist theories go with some typical slogans. For example, Peirce is usually understood as holding the view that:

Truth is the end of inquiry.

So we might say, in order to not suffer we have to desire nothing. But if we desire nothing then we do nothing, and we do not live. Does that mean that suffering is inextricably linked with life? No, because we haven't yet proven that desiring something necessarily implies suffering. — leo

Suffering has a strong linear relationship with unfulfilled desire. However this is merely mental suffering and is relatively harmless compared to other forms of suffering: Hunger, pain and fear.

A statement that does not answer a question or solve a problem is not a fact. It is just a string of words that has no meaning or value. It does not contain a scintilla of 'truth'.

I am very much a believer in using balance as a metaphor to understand 'reality' but fail to see why defining a 'system' is in any way enlightening.

arguable the most common and certainly most original manner of Selfrealisation got in the course of mans histories discriminated as outcrop of ego, defamed as antisocial and reprimanded as immoral, — waechter418

I think you should read 'Atlas shrugged' by Ayn Rand. That was her 'bug bear'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged.

Wherever you experience censorship, you will find fascism.

Truth must be placed within a context. For example, if you are building something you may consider 'the earth is flat' as true if you only consider a certain circumference (buildings, etc) However when you are building a long bridge you have to take into account that the earth is spherical.
Einstein did not disprove Newton it is just that Newton's mathematics don't hold in Einstein's frame of reference.

I think they're missing the anti-Semitic piece — frank

I don't know what you mean with that statement. But I do consider Fox News a fascist news organization. And no I would not censure it.

A fact that is not able to answer/solve a question/problem can never be a fact.

You mean like Fox News?

A balanced system is any system that persists in time to eternity. Because we live in an expanding Universe the sum total of everything is decay (i.e increasing in entropy) and therefor nothing is permanently in balance. We are slowly decaying towards the heat death of the Universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

It was probably just a few old people carrying genuine fear about where their country was headed. Thoughts? — frank

Censorship never works in the long run.
"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

As long as the majority of Chinese citizens believe their lives are improving they will accept the Party's censorship. As soon as they discover the only one's getting rich are the rich no amount of censorship will keep the masses under control.

They're just trying to protect their citizens. Do we love ourselves any less? — frank

Can you give me an example of a regime that protects it's citizens from Fascism through censorship?

I do agree with authorities that are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process. These are external threats to our democracy.

How do you envisage censoring the internal threat of 'climate deniers' and/or fascists?

we use censorship in our daily lives all the time on our own through social communication. — ep3265

True. Self censorship is the price we already have to pay for being social animals.

When someone shuffles a deck of cards and deals you the first twenty cards, the probability of getting those specific cards is extremely unlikely. Yet we have no problem accepting that you will get an extremely unlikely hand. — Wheatley

The probability of getting cards that are completely useless or allow you to win the hand is improbable. You will probably get something in between. The chances of becoming a top athlete or an invalid is improbable. Again somewhere inbetween is more probable. But we are constantly weighing our chances in life.

Shouldn't we isolate ourselves through censorship from foreign aggressors looking to undermine our decision making processes? — frank

To an extent yes. The authorities are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process.

Shouldn't we wage war ideologically against fascism, for instance? — frank

Censorship is the tool used by Fascist regimes to subjugate their citizens.

Shouldn't we wage ideological war against climate change deniers? — frank

Yes. But also this is a war that is fought by propagation accurate information (scientific truths). It is not achieved through censorship. Preventing people from denying climate change is counter productive.

Shouldn't we isolate ourselves through censorship from foreign aggressors looking to undermine our decision making processes? — frank

To an extent yes. The authorities are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process.

Memory and desire gives us our sense of Time.

Only closed systems (objects) are internally balanced and motionless and only the input of energy causes imbalance (motion). Open systems leak energy and require the input of energy to retain it's balance (life).

No I wouldn't argue with that. Using that analogy I would consider censorship to be a form of political (correctness) war perpetrated by the authorities on their own population.

The ability for humans to freely express themselves (in so far it does not intentionally demean other person(s)) should be considered a human right. Censorship is political violence.

Usefulness. The truth is useful. Falsehoods aren't. — Harry Hindu

This search for 'truth' as an abstract concept is illogical. Truth is only logical in relation to a question/problem. Truth is whatever 'solves' this problem or 'answers' that question.

So in choosing the procedure that ends all pain, you would be choosing death. Does reflecting on that change your mind? — frank

It is not a matter of 'choosing death', it is a matter of not desiring life at all cost.
In seeking death (of desire [to live]) I have found freedom from suffering.

Janis Joplin: Freedom just another word for nothing left to lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHRg_iSWzM

To exclude or expect the improbable is irrational.

We suffer in many ways: illness, pain, fear, cold, hunger.... And then there is the suffering we cause ourselves: jealousy, envy, hatred, fear...
How much you suffer from these things you have a certain amount of (mind) control over.

I don't understand this search for 'truth' as an abstract concept. It is only logical to relate ' truth' to a question/problem. Truth is whatever 'solves' this problem or 'answers' that question.

Well it is indeed the 'death' of all suffering and as pain and pleasure are the yin/yang of life I suppose you would be correct. Christianity is very much a death-cult. It is not for nothing they worship a dead man hanging on a cross.

It misses the point because the point of Buddhism is to stop seeking things, — khaled

You are confirming my point. You will not stop 'seeking things' if you do not 'desire' to stop that. You will merely continue with your 'desire' of 'things'. Buddhism shows that the 'desire' of 'things' lies at the root of suffering.

If your desire/wish is to reduce your desire (to be rich, famous....etc) and you are indeed successful, then you ultimately end up with less desire not the same. As you know light can cancel out light.

Zen monks aren't particularly "monkish", they have lives, they laugh, they have personality quirks, etc — khaled

This would more fall under the 'pop' Buddhism you are referring to. This is Buddhism for people in the West who want to be happy without sacrificing their possessions.

Again, this is just another desire. — khaled

So there is no difference between the 'desire' to smoke and the 'desire' not to smoke?
No difference between smoking and not smoking?

You must think in terms of human suffering. The 'desire' (in all religions) is to transcend human suffering (Being dead is the highest form of that). But the path (Tao) is whatever brings you closer to serenity (absence of suffering). Curbing your 'sensual' desires is a way to achieve this higher goal.

Exactly. Your Eternal Consciousness (soul) is important not your body.

They eat to survive. The desire to survive even the Buddhist can't do much about.

Not explicitly. But effectively this is what happens when you refrain from following your desires.

Yes. The absence of suffering is the Utopia humanity is (sub)consciously striving for.

]What if those that were "sacrificed" were against creating the Utopia as imagined by Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.?[/quote]
Well, it would have not been so bad if all these millions slaughtered had brought about a Utopia. Where is this Utopia?