dostf

jp brooks:

experiences in principle......

Yes certainly experiences can convey more information than language to an individual. However, if we wish to share the benefit of these experiences with others, we use language most often.(not to exclude art music etc.)

but how can this help....

I am not sure what statement refers to so perhaps you could rephrase?

But doesn't this just substitute....

No, there will not be "2 selves" or a wider self. "Self" is a composition of "attributes" we have acquired through our experience, upbringing,culture, etc. These attributes taken together are what we erroneously decribe as "me". I state this is not true. You and I are different only in the these ideas. That is (ex.) you were born there raised this way and i some other place with different values experiences etc.
I assert that 2 humans lose these preconceptions about "themselves" when their friendship becomes love. This love of truth/human is the means to "transcend"(i don't like this word as it might have religious or spriritual connotations for some including myself)lets say "pass" our "imaginary self".

other methods of "transcending" ...........

Sure most religions or "spirtual" paths will offer you dozens of them including meditation, breathing exercises, "sacred dance", chanting, prayer, and on and on. Personally i have tried a number of them and have found them wanting. However certainly don't accept my word for it, try them if you think they will benefit you. If you like I could say more but it may be of no real interest to you(or me for that matter) so I leave it.

Other methods........
Again, many have been tried in the past but I would argue unsuccessfully.
Certainly one can study and learn as much as possible about a variety of topics and then reasonably weigh their validity for themselves. For example having read relgions major texts, one can then determine if they make reasonable sense to them and are "the truth".(if thats what someone is seeking.) In fact I strongly encourage this as we shouldn't dismiss what we don't know.-including relgion, philosophy etc.

But it does no good.....

This is a difficult question/assertion you make to answer. I contend in order to live truth ones "knowing truth" has already occurred to the point that is expressable through the use of languague.That is,incorrect assumptions, ideas etc. have already been corrected to the point that they no longer "bias" that person. After this "a living truth" begins without this "self bias" The difficult idea here is this. There is no "you" to know "truth lives". As previously described, "you"(self) has been "passed" therefore truth without name, picture, body lives.(all these are ideas of "me"). However, I contend a "taste" of this living remains after we return to our"selves", that verifies that living. Words are very dodgy here i am afraid.

John Page

If two objects are identical, how can you tell them apart? If there are differences between them they must be different!

Please provide an example of two identical objects that I can tell apart to refute the above. I haven't been able to come up with one, hence my conclusion that it is the mind that leads us to 'assume' they are the same.

'Truth', empirically, happens when we come across two things that appear identical/equivalent.

Human beings do exist, but the concept of a human being exists only in the mind. Looking at this another way, the mind learns to recognize 'stuff' in external reality as fitting 'templates' in the mind.

A quick example. Remember as a kid, before you learned to recognize (say) a station wagon. If a station wagon drove by you wouldn't 'see' a station wagon - you'd report seeing a car o a truck maybe. Hence, if you don't have a concept for an experienced "pattern" it won't mean anything.

Where do the "patterns" come from. Experience, learning about our environment. Eskimos will have poorly developed concepts of jungle but they do have lots of words to describe snow (unlike the jungle dwellers).

Agreed - you have to be there - verbal explanations alone can't convey reality.

Cheers!

dostf

Bill:

I agree with you on the difficulty of conveying ideas through language.I don't consider myself a "real philosopher"( I have enough "names" I assert to myself without adding more.) Let's continue and clarify languague difficulties where needed? This statement of" understanding truth" in relation to "objective truth" supposes there is some objective truth "out there" and we only now understand it to some degree or other. One might suppose then that at some time(maybe never?) we will fully grasp this objective truth and this will end our search. No- religions make that claim that truth is/stopped/final with/ their prophet or god or value system. As humans progress so does truth-there is no "end" to it.

Human as highest expression of truth.....

Yes I probably should not have stated it in this manner (as I stated originally it was not entirely correct.) I had hoped to give a slightly different expression to the original statement of Human is the truth for conversation sake.

A point here- your citing my error of hubris assuming nothing "higher" will have or ever has existed- how does this relate to your own definition "absolute truth"? just a thought.

Truth as cultural characteristic...
Yes I fully agree, our understanding is certainly shaped in this manner. These understandings experiences knowledge etc. form "attributes" -these taken together compose what i call"self". It is precisely this "untrue or non existent self that we must "pass" in order to live truth.

If I could wave my magic wand....

Yes certainly if you removed ideas of true and false from human they would still exist. In fact religious thought/doctrine attempted to rectify this situation by imposing codes of behaviour in an attempt to somehow establish what was true and false right and wrong for people of that time and that understanding. It failed and is certainly not reasonable for todays human. One might also argue that many homo sapiens today have no idea of true or false either.

Certain "locally useful facts" known to humans.....

Who else is there to know even this? All that is known is known by humans.
I will take your "alien" comparative as being used to theorically explain your thoughts on this matter.

human as priveledged.........

It seems to be your contention that humans might just as well be another "object " in the universe. One might argue that with our myriad of capabilities reason, logic, progressiveness etc. etc.(shared by no other specises) we are highly priveledged. Can the cat know the value of diamonds? Can the earth love the moon? Does the black hole postulate the big bang theory? No, only human does. Without human where is the meaning? How is science proving otherwise? Science is very useful for offering us the best most up to date understandings of our world. Of course without humans there is no science i suppose.

if only one alien being is discovered....
Again I take it you give this example to state your point. Please tell me if this is an incorrect assumption on my part.

dostf

John:

I think there is some confusion here. I gave that example as it seemed to be what you were stating as your definition of truth. The example I gave was to see whether i understood your assertion correctly. So correct me if i am wrong .

Human exists-concept of human being existing in mind-pattern recognition.....

I certainly agree that concepts of what a human is (and other things for that matter as per your example) may be described as pattern recognition effected by our envirornment, upbringing, experiences etc. It is exactly these things that form our ideas, opinions, beliefs etc. I contend it is these concepts that we must "pass" in order to live truth. Again, one might say the idea of truth is just a concept of the mind affected by envirornment. Yet how else can i state my aseertion human is truth?(there is no truth "outside" of human.) Language is not sufficient here as we both seem to agree. However i also contend that through such conversation many "falsehoods" can be dispelled (about ourselves and the world) and is therefore valuable.

We always see only "parts" of the "whole" and give them name. Our "conditioned envirormental self" (previous points) cannot do otherwise, as it sees(understands, evaluates) from that perspective. The truth/human is wholeness without name, face , body-yet it has a name, face, body and that is "human"

jpbrooks

Well, in general, how can the things you have mentioned result in a better life for us?

But how does simply relating to another "self", and experiencing "friendship" and "love" with that other "self" enable us to get beyond any idea of "self"?

Also, I'm curious as to why you found the other spiritual paths you tried inadequate.

The point is that we have to live as though we are individual "selves" in spite of our desire to "transcend" that mode of existence.

Jayhawker Soule

Exactly!

John Page

dotf:

Yes, perhaps I misunderstood the context of some of what you said. As to truth, though, I maintain it is a subjective value as per my original definition.

Truth is a word that represents an abstract value attained when two or more entities are deemed to be identical.

A couple of points:
1. I think the mind is part of its environment.
2. "Human" is a concept 'stored' as part of a mind which is supported by the brain etc. "Truth" is similarly a concept, a tautology. Literally, then, "human" does not contain "truth". Supposed encapsulation of one (concept) within another is an implication of the mind's structuring received sense data.

Use of the definite article "the" can be misleading. It might convey the impression that there is something called "the truth" that the same in all minds. I reality, I believe, we all have a common understanding of "truth", "human" etc.

Does this help?

Cheers!

dostf

jp brooks:

how can the things you mentioned......

Well, this is really a far ranging question. I offer this example for now, and could say more if you wish. You are far less influenced by "events" that otherwise might effect you negatively. Why? I contend that events in life are tied with our own false ideas of "self" What effects you does not effect me and vice/versa, because of our own ideas, experiences, beliefs etc. What is an "event" for me very well might mean nothing to you etc. As this "supposed self" has less influence on us and we come closer to living truth, "events" no longer have the same grip on us they once did. They certainly do not influence or effect us for the same length of time. Even at what i might describe as the logic/reasoning stage this is so. For example, I have no fear that some "god" is judging my actions and i might one day might go to "hell". I have reasoned through study that this is an falsity. I am therefore free of this concern. More can be said on this but i will leave it for now unless you want to take it further.

other spiritual paths....

Again a long conversation...! I will try to summarize!

Most paths are based at some point on belief-as my "reasoning faculties" grew a little, much of what i read and heard did not "ring true".
Many of the people i was involved with were sincere, intelligent seekers,-some were not-as they were unable to progress past certain difficulties, i surmised they would not be able to help me do so for mine.
Most "spiritual paths" are based on some for of hierarchy stated or not. This often leads to thinking one is better or often worse than others- I assert this is not true.
ex. I knew many supposedly "advanced" people I had read about, that were "titled" ie shaikh, guru, leader etc. that "abused" their authority and could not correct themselves -nevermind me. I should note some of these people were sincere in their efforts to help and were not "bad" people-however to my understanding they did not know (or live) truth. And these were people who were way beyond your average church goer!!!(in my estimation)

But how does simply relating one self to another self.....

This interacton between humans is the vehicle that allows us to "pass" self. Even in ordinary friendships we often state something Like"oh I cna really be myself around that person" Why? we have developed a degree of trust for that person and don't have to "put up a front" - our "self" is already a little less forceful. Everyone i think has some sense of this. The same sort of process occurs between what i will call "essence friends" where love of truth is the base of that friendship. That love allows us to pass "self". Again this is a living experience so words are not fully expressive.

The point is that we have to live as though we are individual "selves" in spite of our desire to "transcend" that mode of existence....(jpb)

Yes, we do often live this way.(sadly) However, it is my assertion that there is another living that is possible. That "desire" or seeking though is certainly very important.

dostf

reasonable doubt:


It seems to be your contention that humans might just as well be another "object " in the universe.
exactly..

No, "you that is not you" is more vauable than you could ever imagine........don't be sad.........bon chance!

dostf

John Page:

Truth is a word that represents an abstract value attained when two or more entities are deemed to be identical.(jp)

My original example was an attempt to describe this situation. Perhaps you could offer one of your own to clarify it for me....

yes "truth and "human" are words used to describe certain concepts-hence they are never accurate to describe a living experience.However, our understanding of what these words imply (to ourselves), can be more or less correct. ex. one persons idea of "truth" is ideas presented in some religious text, another in a philosophy theory. etc.. At what I might define as the reason/ logic stage, we can discern which is more or less true using our reasoning faculties.

Use of the definite article "the" can be misleading. It might convey the impression that there is something called "the truth" that the same in all minds. I reality, I believe, we all have a common understanding of "truth", "human" etc. (jp)

Not that I am by any means (Mr. grammer) But i think you may have left out a word and a letter in your statement- maybe you can check it as i don't want to comment if this is the case as i might misinterpret your statement.