Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it...
— synthesis

...then you mean something curious by "understand". One checks that a child understands addition by having them add various numbers; one checks that someone understands the road rules by watching their driving.

...since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist?
— synthesis

More fumbling with words. Are you claiming not to know how to add 1+1? That's hardly going to improve your standing. — Banno

What I am claiming is that you think you know but you don't. You can go along with the system that says that 1+1=2, but so what. It's only true if you believe that more than 1 exists.

People have historically done all kinds of bizarre things thinking they were true. Perhaps the next time you go to the doctor complaining of a headache, s/he can drill a couple of holes in your cranium to allow the evil spirits to escape.

I know what you're trying to say. To me it seems like you're focussing too much on impermanence and should rather be explaining non-duality or transcendence to us. — praxis

From the frying pan to the fire, eh? Some days I can put this stuff into words and other days the words are far, far away. I'll give it a shot...

Oneness (non-duality). You guys are going to love this! :) One-ness is literal. Consider the following...

Let's get off the planet for a moment and place ourselves out in the middle of space. An observer is watching a light source (that happens to be 100 light-years away), explode (instantaneously). Observer 2 is also looking at the same object and is 200 LYs away, so on and so forth until you have an entire Universe of observers looking at the same object explode. The infinite number of observers all see the explosion "live" but see it at different times (relative to their distance from the light source).

If you eliminate time (which is a human construct, after all), you can see that the same event is happening everywhere simultaneously. Not only that, but this applies to all things. What makes it seem otherwise is our relative frame of reference.

Another example. An observer is sitting in a room. Since each object in the room lies at a different distance from the observer, this should mean that each object exists in a different time frame (albeit a small difference, the principle applies). Why do we see it all happening at the same time? Go outside and stand on a hill on a cloudless/moonless night and tell me how you can see the tree next to you at the same time you can see the light emanating from a star many, many LYs away. How is it possible to see the near present (tree) and the past (star light) at the same time?

But it 's not impossible. We do understand reality. You, for example, understand how to write in English on a web forum. — Banno

Just because we can do something does not mean we can understand it (especially considering that we are incapable of understanding anything :).

For example, you say 1+1=2, but I say that since every "thing" that exists in the Universe is (technically) unique, how can more than one of anything exist? The same would apply to everything else.

What is so difficult about observing or understanding impermanence? It seems extraordinarily simple to me. It is also * * * dare I say it * * * an intellection. — praxis

Of course it is, but you would be amazed at how many people refuse to grasp this truth (lowercase t). Understanding impermanence (intellectually) is one thing, realizing it opens the door to The Absolute.

That's pivotal here. The discussion of truth in the OP is set as if it were an analysis, but isn't.

It's statements that are true or false. Synthesis appeals to a different thing, Truth. inventing a dichotomy between relative and absolute; then complains that one cannot talk about the absolute, while all along talking about it.

So as Pop points out, the dichotomy collapses on itself. — Banno

Thanks for giving me the credit but you'll have to go back around 2500 years ago (or better) to find the originators of such thinking (Truth and truth). I am simply attempting to put this out there for whomever to consider.

If you would agree that it is impossible for us to understand reality (because of the limitations of our intellect, temporal consideration, etc), then you might consider that Reality (Absolute Truth) exists outside of our ability to perceive it.

The best we can do is go with the flow of change and operate within our limited ability to perceive. Once the processing begins, then heaven and hell appear along all the other intellectual goodies.

I understand what you mean but for me, without being exposed to a certain quality of ideas including a sense of scale and relativity that allowed me to experience human meaning and purpose within universal meaning and purpose, I'd be dead now and a sacrifice to alcohol.. — Nikolas

Those things that are purely experiential open up entirely new possibilities and leave thinking in the proverbial dust. Even your ultimate internet fantasy cannot come anywhere close to competing with a blissful sexual experience with a live partner.

While ideas are one thing, experience is the real thing.

Every death is a tragedy, but intelligent and thoughtful people need to be able to hold two ideas in their minds: One, that the deaths are bad; and two, that in many cases they have been politicized. — fishfry

Most deaths are perfectly normal and not tragic in the least.

That's EXACTLY what it is. But it's literal. It's only when you give up the idea of understanding can you understand. Real understanding is not an intellectual process, its understanding the flow, as you noted. It's understanding that reality is the change itself.

No, I believe that (literally) we cannot understand anything. It's pretty easy to prove. Just consider the fact that everything is changing. How is it possible to understand anything if it is constantly changing?

I shall. Never underestimate the vegetation. It will be here fighting the good fight long after the planet has disposed of our kind.

I guess when you believe that you cannot (really) understand anything, philosophy is like the extra button sewn on your shirt (just in case you happen to lose one). Questioning is simply an indication that you are no longer paying attention (aware), a condition that leads us rapidly down the very short path to hell.

I just found a quote which I thought perhaps is useful for reflection, by an author called Bruno Scattolin:
'Truth is relative, reality is absolute. But as you are plunged into the world of relativism you can only have a partial perception of reality.'

So, what this is suggesting is that it is not that there is no absolute, but that we are locked into a particular limitation of perspective, in space and time, and one's whole cultural and personal embodiment. — Jack Cummins

Once when I was a novice student, my teacher told me that when I feel the need to intellectualize, I should go find the nearest tree and tell it everything that was on my mind. He then said to listen carefully for the tree's response as this would be the truth I was seeking.

It was great teaching then and just as good now. Instead of bothering you guys, I think I'll go outside and consult with the Oak and maybe the Maple, as well. :)

There can be only ONE Absolute. The Absolute is NOW. While existence within NOW is a process. We can become aware of a quality of reality within creation above Plato's divided line that is beyond our sensory limitations. We can call it mystical but it still may be logical

Do you agree with the four cognitive states described by Plato?

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

Secularism is limited to discursive thought while noesis experiences intuition. As a creature within creation serving the process of existence, noesis is the limit of our intellect. NOW IS while the process of existence and its relative states all takes place within NOW. — Nikolas

It's been decades since I have really gotten into anything overly intellectual (other than my work).

As far as NOW is concerned, the idea that we cannot access the present presents difficulties. You can go round and round and round with all of these ideas as people have through history and end up where?

I discovered meditation as a way to simply see things as close as I could to what they actually are. It has helped me in ways I could never relate but all the words that attempt to describe this are severely lacking. If a picture is worth a thousand words, an experience must be worth a trillion at the very least.

He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. — Laozi

This is meant to be understood on several levels. The Dao cannot be understood nor spoken.

It may be the goal of spirituality but it’s certainty not the goal of religion. If it were the goal of religion then it would all be geared towards that end, but it’s not. Even in a relatively austere tradition like zen it’s not. — praxis

Of course it is. Some of the most serious Zen students are Christian mystics.

If it is word-play you seek, then you can pretty much prove anything you wish, but in attempting to chat about the non-intellectual, you must allow the participants some slack.

The reason Zen masters teach in such a cryptic manner is just this. You cannot make sense of it. The teaching is to get you to see the relative (impermanent) nature of all things intellectual and get back to your task...meditation.

Relative truth is getting as close as possible to the truth intellectually, whereas Absolute Truth is THE Truth (which we cannot access).

There are some who have experienced the inner vertical direction beginning at the relative level and concluding at the Absolute and some who are not yet able if it exists. The Absolute is beyond our sensory limitations but can be experienced by noesis or a higher form of intellect. Plato's Ladder of Love is good example. It begins at the animal level and concludes as a "form" and part of the eternal unchanging beyond. Contemplating the ladder allows us to experience this inner vertical direction which connects the relative with the Absolute. — Nikolas

Perhaps this refers to a different kind of absolute. The mystical type I refer to is not accessible to our intellect.

All things knowable (intellectual) are relative.  These things that exist intellectually are constantly changing, exist in time, therefore their relative nature.

I think that's where you lose me a bit because this takes far more rigor to prove than what you have stated. Moreso, I think there are knowable things that are absolute, like math for instance, and since you said all my one example fails your argument. — Humean316

Would you disagree that all things are changing?

You speak of two forms of truth, relative and absolute. I am not sure that it can be divided so distinctly and think that there may be a whole spectrum of possibilities. Also, in thinking about the idea of the inevitable, I think that this is a word chosen by the mystics. The problem with this for philosophy is that we are trying to get to the whole where we can grasp to explain everything in words. — Jack Cummins

Jack, as you know, I don't believe anything can be understood, but since we are human beings attempting to communicate with one another, language is pretty much all we have at our disposal. And as mentioned previously, if it were possible to achieve any kind of great understanding, it would have happened long, long ago.

However, one of the problems with this is that there are levels of reality which are beyond us in the epistemological sense. Obviously, I don't think that we should make excuses for ourselves, but our brains and perceptual apparatus may not have the capability. Plato's idea of the Forms behind the cave of shadows was one round it, but I am sure that the whole idea of Forms is open for debate. — Jack Cummins

From what I can tell, we seem to operate at a fairly low level. Just think about everything that goes on in our field of view is logarithmically larger than what we are actually able to process (consciously).

Perhaps the way forward in the current paradigm is in the realm of quantum dimensionality. Nevertheless, even then, this is the territory of the mystics, although most people seem to just stand back in awe of quantum physics. Perhaps that is because it is seen as mystique as opposed to mystical, because people feel blinded by the knowledge and language of the new physics. — Jack Cummins

I am sure that folks in the future will laugh at the idea of quantum mechanics just like we do at those that preceded us with all their wacky notions.

Because many people are simply unaware of such a thing. It expands possibilities and that's always a good thing.

If all truth is relative, then so is absolute truth. So all truth is relative - end of story? — Pop

There are two types of truth, Relative truth and Absolute Truth. You are correct, though, if you speak of Absolute Truth, then you are intellectualizing it and making it relative. Agreed.

In the non-intellectual realm (pure meditation, for example), there is no conceptualization so this does not become an issue and Absolute Truth is present (although this is just the name somebody came up for it). The words are simply pointing towards the truth and The Truth.

Many people use "truth" (lower case "t) to mean the truth of things as close as we can intellectually perceive it, whereas uppercase "T" as Absolute Truth (then same distinction as god or God).

... that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute).

The absolute [ ... ] is unknowable, unchangeable, and exists outside of time.
— synthesis
Which is it? The "intellect" and "time" are not the same, the latter is definitely "outside of" the former (insofar as "our intellect" is itself temporal).

And how does one even know that there is an X given that it is "unknowable"? — 180 Proof

You are asking me intellectual questions concerning non-intellectual matters. There is really no way to answer these questions as it is something experiential. It would be like asking somebody to explain what being in love is about. Let me try again...

Everything that we can conceive (things, ideas, etc.) exist within the four dimensions. They are characterized by their transient nature, that is, everything we can conceive of constantly changes. This is the known Universe and it has a relative nature.

The Absolute is that which is unknowable. For instance, what on the other side of the Universe? Where were you before you were born? If it is unknowable, then it does not conform to the four dimensions.

But what is consider as absolute to you, it is so relative for me. — javi2541997

Once intellectualized, it is relative for everybody. If you speak or think of God, then it is not the true God. Again, The Absolute "exists" outside of existence.

It always seemed to me that if there was something to figure out, somebody would have done this long, long ago. Instead, it seems like the most intelligent folks kept banging their heads against the wall while others attempted to find an alternative to such abuse.

I am not here to entertain you. If you don't understand or like what I am writing, there are many other threads in which you can participate. If you have a particular point, then by all means, have your say.

Because it's only when you realize this can you be open to all things.

Since all things intellectual are transient (constantly changing), this limits our ability to understand. BUT, as that door closes, another opens, one which provides a completely different portal allowing us to participate in the change itself.

IOW, what's real is the change, not the illusory (momentary) appearance of things (or ideas).

It's trying and failing to understand that leads to the mystery. — T Clark

Great masters like Lao Tu were able to bridge the knowable and the unknowable as a way of pointing to The Truth.

It is interesting to note that 2500 years later, his work is still the second most popularly read book in the world after the Christian bible. I know I have read it no less than 100 times!

Keep in mind that the TTC is written in ancient Chinese. Apparently even Chinese speakers have trouble understanding it. — T Clark

There is nothing to understand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Open your mouth and you have already lost it.

Huang Po d. 850AD

I think you will find what all these destructive groups share, is exclusive group identity, and that is the more likely culprit, rather than groups themselves. — Tzeentch

The problem is that they pool and leverage their power and individuals find themselves up against a creature they simply do not know how to fight.

What do you do when you call your cell phone provider and they assure you that your issue is the most important one they are addressing (you the the fifty million other people they are telling the same thing).

The nature of groups has been understood throughout history and this is why the U.S. Constitution was written the way it was, to protect its citizens from the destructive power of groups.

I don't think the health care system would mind you doing that, they just won't pay you for it.

I don't begrudge you your principles or your life. It just seems like you would have a bit more understanding and sympathy for how hard it is to live your life outside the system as it is. Especially given that you work in health care, one of the professions most involving large institutions and bureaucracy. — T Clark

Groups care about groups. Individuals care about individuals. Of course the health care system doesn't mind what I am doing, but what if EVERYBODY started doing it? Remember, the primary purpose of the health care system is the health care system, not the patients (and it's been this way for decades).

I know how hard it is to live outside the system (somewhat, after all, how much can any of us really live outside of it at this point), but doing the right things in life is ALWAYS difficult. The point is that you have to do what you can and not give in to the feeling that you are powerless.

Can you describe how you live your life to minimize their omnipresence/omnipotence. — T Clark

Let me give you an example...

I am a practicing physician. If you were my patient, I would educate you to the best of my ability and then give you choices (and discuss those choices in great detail so you can make the best decision for yourself).

Do you believe that this is what the health care system would like me to do?

Can you describe how you live your life to minimize their omnipresence/omnipotence. — T Clark

I take as much personal/professional responsibility for my own actions. I am extremely independent.

So, do you live in the wilderness and obtain all your food by growing, hunting, and fishing? If no, where do you get your food? Your money - work, inheritance, government? Your home? Medical care? You live in a complex society. We are all group people. How are you any different? Could you live on your own without any other people? Without all the infrastructure that keeps things moving? — T Clark

It's not a black and white issue. Of course you need some group activity, but anything more than the absolute minimum necessary to carry-on causes all kinds of difficulty.

Groups have seemingly perfected the manipulation of individuals to the point where there are those like yourself who simply cannot exist without their omnipresence/omnipotence.

The point of this thread was to point out that the entire global-national-state/provincial/local power structure will tell you that groups produce the very air you breathe and you will certainly asphyxiate without them. There is absolutely nothing further from the truth.

Group-people are the parasites that have nearly completely destroyed their hosts (individuals). Just the same, the professional and administrative classes are so easily paid-off as nothing is more important to these folks than a mini-McMansion, a slick European sedan, and the right combination of meds to keep their heads on straight.

This socio-economic system provides almost unlimited opportunity to those who have the drive to take advantage of the chances to succeed, but with this comes all the rest, the liars, cheaters, and thieves that eventually infiltrate all human enterprise.

The 2020's are about dredging out the corruption and allowing a new cycle to begin.

Ok. If you were to go step by step through the 1970s, how would you describe how we got to fiat money? — frank

1971 was the final break with the gold standard but this process began decades previous. There are many volumes written on this but here are the brief highlights...

1916 The establishment of the third central bank in the U.S.
1933 FDR suspended the gold standard except in international trade
1971 Nixon's imposition of the USD legal for the balance of international trade

The establishment of FIAT currency is the greatest national fraud you can commit. It is essentially giving license to counterfeit the currency, a crime that would find an individual strung up by their toenails, but when carried out by politicians and bankers is holiday celebrated like none other.

We now know the US was planning to blow up the Middle East to get oil flowing. The Saudis backed down and were forced to send all oil profits to NY banks. This led to massive investment in Latin American countries which were eventually forced to end all social welfare programs and open their societies to foreign exploitation rather than default on their loans. — frank

I get the oil thing, but in a historical context, the creation of FIAT money is a MUCH bigger deal. And the presiding empire is always going to do what it needs to to secure resources (especially when the entire West was dependent on relatively cheap energy).

Well, I know there is a Post-Keyensian explanation for it. I think they'd say that if you'd had taxed the money out of the economy, then prices would fall.

But a huge aspect of that problem was the oil cartels messing with the price of oil.

I guess you'd have to be more specific. — Dharmi

By far, the most important event in the 70's was the final break with gold by Nixon in 1971. This adoption of FIAT currency allowed what we see today, particularly using the USD to balance trade internationally. This led to the exportation of the U.S.'s manufacturing base and an entire succession of events, including the running of enormous trade deficits, the counterfeiting of USDs and wholesale manipulation of interest rates leading to multiple commodity and asset bubbles.

Oil was a little blip on radar, but often used to cover up the adoption of Monopoly (the game) money and the corruption of the entire political and corporate system through bogus central banking.

Yes because we the humans have proven for centuries that we cannot live in the wild (neither freedom) without an order. The different scenario would be a chaos. — javi2541997

I understand that most people believe that our chains are essential.

Although you do need a central authority to maintain security and individual rights, that's about it. When the authority decides that they are the source of power, your society is heading south.

Any of you serfs out there feel as if the central authority in your country treats you as if you hold sway over them?

On that we can agree.

A single person invented the nuclear bomb. — Outlander

You need to read up on the Manhattan project.

It is only a group capable of unleashing that kind of horror on humanity.