Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 03-26-2002, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
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....

Sure. You become aware of two objects coming toward you. As they come closer you see one is a car and the other a truck. They come closer still and you recognize they are both produced by Ford.

Your mind processes the sense data received and detects two 'things'. Thus they appear identical as objects, then identical as (classes of) vehicle and then as Fords. It is the mind that does the "deeming" by matching the sense data with preconceived templates of different types of "thing" developed through experience.

Quote:

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.

Agreed. To confirm: Written language is a way of representing things using symbols. Truth occurs in the mind of the beholder. The word "truth" is the word used to describe the occurence of truth.

Quote:

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.

Yep, sorry, typo at the beginning of the last sentence. Should be "In reality, I believe...."

Cheers!

dostf · 03-27-2002, 03:39 PM

John Page:

In reality I believe.....

Do you mean to state that that we all share some common belief of what truth is? It would seem it varies greatly from person to person.
Also the words (in reality) should perhaps be qulified as to what you mean by this.
The word "belief" also is troublesome for obvious reasons, although i think you used this word descriptively as opposed to literally? ie.( I am not a big fan of "belief")

Yes your example clarified your position for me.
This is exactly how mind operates, it classifies,compares,identifies and stores. Mind can never "see" the "whole" only "parts", because of the infuence of our stored experiences, knowledge, inclinations etc.
However, i state this perspective while very useful for maintaining our life(therefore valuable) is not "true". It is a "part" of the "whole".
I assert when "mind" becomes "loving mind" it no longer holds these limited (part) perspectives as "true" and something else is lived.

John Page · 03-27-2002, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
John Page:

In reality I believe.....

Do you mean to state that that we all share some common belief of what truth is? It would seem it varies greatly from person to person.

"Share" can be ambiguous, let me use analogy. Yes, share in the sense that we all separately have eyes (but there are exceptions and considerable variations). No, not share in the sense that there are only two eyes and we're all sharing them.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
John Page:
Also the words (in reality) should perhaps be qulified as to what you mean by this.
The word "belief" also is troublesome for obvious reasons, although i think you used this word descriptively as opposed to literally? ie.( I am not a big fan of "belief")

In reality.... as opposed to purely in the imagination. Belief is an assumed truth. Objective belief would be admitting you might be wrong. Belief is like opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
John Page:
I assert when "mind" becomes "loving mind" it no longer holds these limited (part) perspectives as "true" and something else is lived.

Mind can be emotionally driven, in my conception it includes the totality of drivers of thought. (Brain structure, emotional activity, electrical activity etc.). I don't understand your "limited (part) perspectives" idea although I would agree we can be 'changelings'.

Cheers!

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

dostf · 03-27-2002, 06:25 PM

John Page;

limited parts perspective......

Mind is limited in its ability to discern "truth" as it always defines from its own perspective, particularly through comparison and recognition. However, i assert that in "loving mind" position, we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc., and move towards "wholeness" . Things are perceived as they are not through our own individual "looking glass". This "looking glass" is in fact what separates us from one another.

John Page · 03-28-2002, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
John Page;

limited parts perspective......

Mind is limited in its ability to discern "truth" as it always defines from its own perspective, particularly through comparison and recognition. However, i assert that in "loving mind" position, we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc., and move towards "wholeness" . Things are perceived as they are not through our own individual "looking glass". This "looking glass" is in fact what separates us from one another.

Ah! Yes! Does the mind have a mind of its own?

Conjecture on my part but I think of this as the mind being able to reflect upon its own thoughts, i.e. introspection. This affords us an element of objectivity in our thinking and I would venture this is the foundation of individual reason, as opposed to reflexivity.

I don't think "we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc.," as you put it. It could be that the experience of revelation comes from changing a key internal axiom that causes a wholesale shift in our values etc. This experience could feel like freedom.

The wholeness you refer to could be described as a mutual admiration society!

Cheers!

dostf · 03-28-2002, 02:44 PM

john page:

I am not sure how you came to ask does a mind have a mind of its own? from what i had stated. Perhaps you could explain?

I don't think "we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc.," as you put it. It could be that the experience of revelation comes from changing a key internal axiom that causes a wholesale shift in our values etc. This experience could feel like freedom.(jp)

I assert that a composition of all our "attributes" taken together can be desrcibed as "self". This "self" is not "real" or "true" being that it is a composition of our knowledge, experience, beliefs etc. If we "pass" this position of "self" , i assert we no longer are constained by our "self" vantage point and experience something else. This certainly could be decribed as "freedom". In fact it is the only "real freedom" that is,-freedom from our "supposed self". If you have ever been in "ordinary" love this experience is not unfamiliar, Sometimes we feel we are "losing ourselves" when with the other person and only they exist for us at that moment. However, if that other person you love also loves "truth", something beyond my previous example is lived. Words are insuffcient here.

John Page · 03-28-2002, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
I am not sure how you came to ask does a mind have a mind of its own? from what i had stated. Perhaps you could explain?

You talked about "mind" and "loving mind" as though they were different. I subjectively observe that sometimes I seem to be able to 'marshall' my thoughts and other times they just go their own sweet way. Maybe its just my imagination running riot.

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
I assert that a composition of all our "attributes" taken together can be desrcibed as "self".........

I agree words are insufficient on many occasions and life is more complex than language alone can convey. I agree increased knowledge of self can increase 'freedom' from self - one is likely able to compensate for certain bias for example. Love may decrease selfishness, again permitting more objectivity. Unconditional love and/or blind faith in another is dangerous territory, you are handing your objectivity over to another.

There can be no escape from our inner selves except through annihilation of self. True?

dostf · 03-28-2002, 07:45 PM

john page:

By "mind" I mean our reasoning/logical faculties.
It functions in relation to known information.
By "loving mind" I mean " mind in love" it does not necesarily rely on known information in its funtioning.
Basically we don't literally have 2 minds. I use these terms in an attempt to describe different perpectives or positions that the mind is capable of.

ex- you ask me a question- mind will answer from what it has available to it-more or less
loving mind position may answer with a statement or example which we did not necessarily "know" before.

Increased knowledge of self increasing freedom from self....

This is so, but is not an end unto itself. Knowing our(selfs) will not lead us "past" our(selfs) i suggest it is useful to a point,(although possibly harmful depending what "system" you explore to accomplish this)

Unconditional love.......

100% agree with you! That is why i think i asserted earlier in this thread, that first 2 humans should become friends-later it may develop into "love". We certainly should never have "blind faith" or give "unconditional love to another until we have established that they do not want anything from us (except to have a friend), say nothing contrary to our reason, and never ask us to believe anything.-just "hear it" until we live it for ourselves.

There can be no escape...

I think i understand what you are stating, although I'm not sure what the "inner self" is as compared to "self"? I agree with your statement, in principle, although i might phrase it differently.

I contend this "self" is not real it does not exist. It is a composite of our understandings upbringing knowledge beliefs etc. the difficulty here is we think this is what we are or "me".
I state this is not true.
Also to "annihilate" something that does not exist is not logical. (from one perspective)
From another perspective some aspects of self are harmless. ex.( some likes/dislikes) i prefer green apples to red apples- there is no need to "annihilate" this aspect of my(self)

jpbrooks · 03-29-2002, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
[QB]

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.

So, are you saying that psychological "progress" involves overcoming the desire to put up a "persona" or social facade in our interactions with others in the world?

Quote:

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.

No, I meant that existence as separate individuals is practically an unavoidable experience for us. So psychological "progress" must involve more than simply overcoming the belief that we are individual "Selves".

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

John Page · 03-29-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
I contend this "self" is not real it does not exist. It is a composite of our understandings upbringing knowledge beliefs etc. the difficulty here is we think this is what we are or "me".
I state this is not true.

I'm confused. You say "self" is not real, doesn't exist, and then go on to define something you say is not true.

For example, isn't this like defining the spirit of the American people and then saying its irrelevant?

Cheers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2002, 03:39 PM	#22
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	John Page: In reality I believe..... Do you mean to state that that we all share some common belief of what truth is? It would seem it varies greatly from person to person. Also the words (in reality) should perhaps be qulified as to what you mean by this. The word "belief" also is troublesome for obvious reasons, although i think you used this word descriptively as opposed to literally? ie.( I am not a big fan of "belief") Yes your example clarified your position for me. This is exactly how mind operates, it classifies,compares,identifies and stores. Mind can never "see" the "whole" only "parts", because of the infuence of our stored experiences, knowledge, inclinations etc. However, i state this perspective while very useful for maintaining our life(therefore valuable) is not "true". It is a "part" of the "whole". I assert when "mind" becomes "loving mind" it no longer holds these limited (part) perspectives as "true" and something else is lived.

03-27-2002, 06:25 PM	#24
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	John Page; limited parts perspective...... Mind is limited in its ability to discern "truth" as it always defines from its own perspective, particularly through comparison and recognition. However, i assert that in "loving mind" position, we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc., and move towards "wholeness" . Things are perceived as they are not through our own individual "looking glass". This "looking glass" is in fact what separates us from one another.

03-28-2002, 02:44 PM	#26
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	john page: I am not sure how you came to ask does a mind have a mind of its own? from what i had stated. Perhaps you could explain? I don't think "we are freed from our own "concepts" that have been formed through experiences, knowledge etc.," as you put it. It could be that the experience of revelation comes from changing a key internal axiom that causes a wholesale shift in our values etc. This experience could feel like freedom.(jp) I assert that a composition of all our "attributes" taken together can be desrcibed as "self". This "self" is not "real" or "true" being that it is a composition of our knowledge, experience, beliefs etc. If we "pass" this position of "self" , i assert we no longer are constained by our "self" vantage point and experience something else. This certainly could be decribed as "freedom". In fact it is the only "real freedom" that is,-freedom from our "supposed self". If you have ever been in "ordinary" love this experience is not unfamiliar, Sometimes we feel we are "losing ourselves" when with the other person and only they exist for us at that moment. However, if that other person you love also loves "truth", something beyond my previous example is lived. Words are insuffcient here.

03-28-2002, 07:45 PM	#28
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	john page: By "mind" I mean our reasoning/logical faculties. It functions in relation to known information. By "loving mind" I mean " mind in love" it does not necesarily rely on known information in its funtioning. Basically we don't literally have 2 minds. I use these terms in an attempt to describe different perpectives or positions that the mind is capable of. ex- you ask me a question- mind will answer from what it has available to it-more or less loving mind position may answer with a statement or example which we did not necessarily "know" before. Increased knowledge of self increasing freedom from self.... This is so, but is not an end unto itself. Knowing our(selfs) will not lead us "past" our(selfs) i suggest it is useful to a point,(although possibly harmful depending what "system" you explore to accomplish this) Unconditional love....... 100% agree with you! That is why i think i asserted earlier in this thread, that first 2 humans should become friends-later it may develop into "love". We certainly should never have "blind faith" or give "unconditional love to another until we have established that they do not want anything from us (except to have a friend), say nothing contrary to our reason, and never ask us to believe anything.-just "hear it" until we live it for ourselves. There can be no escape... I think i understand what you are stating, although I'm not sure what the "inner self" is as compared to "self"? I agree with your statement, in principle, although i might phrase it differently. I contend this "self" is not real it does not exist. It is a composite of our understandings upbringing knowledge beliefs etc. the difficulty here is we think this is what we are or "me". I state this is not true. Also to "annihilate" something that does not exist is not logical. (from one perspective) From another perspective some aspects of self are harmless. ex.( some likes/dislikes) i prefer green apples to red apples- there is no need to "annihilate" this aspect of my(self)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.