Are you a truth seeker or a partisan?

[MrPickins]

The real questions are:
Pumpkin or Sweet potato?
Boston Creme or Coconut Creme?

You're from Texas, but you leave out pecan?

I am disappoint.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You're from Texas, but you leave out pecan?

I am disappoint.

Oh noes, don't mention pecan pie as it starts the whole pecan debate.

1) How to pronounce it (PuhCan, PeeCan, PeeCon, or PuhCon)

2) Who makes the best pecan pie? Texas or Georgia?

 

[Moonbeam]

How would I know if I was telling myself the truth?

Well that's a good question. I think LunarRay told us what he thinks, that the truth is what he intuits it to be. The important thing about his answer to me is that he seems to have arrived at this truth via some process of intellectual analysis and thus carefully formulated words regarding some feeling level process. In this way I find in his words a kind of intellectually honest depth. I am impressed by them. If there is some truth that is perhaps universal, then perhaps too, the truth may call to us. But the other thing I see in what he says is that he is satisfied with his idea of truth, that he feels a sense that he has arrived somewhere with what he knows. He is content and seeks nothing nor has any need to impress.

The image that comes to my mind here as I write this is of a whirlpool and a black and white hole of theory. Say that truth is an attractor, like gravity, that produces a whirlpool in the ocean of human awareness that draws to it, sucks down the minds of individuals according to their own self induced gravity, like calling to like the more that likeness comes into being, such that when the human mind knows or is the truth it passes from this reality of darkness into the light of another reality, as it is thrown out into a completely different state of being.

I could see in such an analogy folk like Jesus with his deep gravity, his heaviness and perspicacity of teaching, evidence of the existence of such a truth that draws like to like with its ability to attract the hearts of billions, that something about what he and others like him reflect such a possibility, that something in the universe attracts the soul of man.

And I could see in such a picture also a sea of men far from the whirlpools funnel circling it so slowly they detect no motion at all.

I knew a man who to me was very heavy. He claimed he was 99.999% sure he was OK, that he had plumbed the depths of his unconsciousness to such an extent that he had rooted out all negative feeling, that he was 99.999% sure he had relived and eliminated from his past, for all practical purposes, every instance where he had been made to feel unworthy. He taught me many things in words, but when he wanted to tell me what the real truth is like all he would do is sit and not his head in the affirmative and smile the huge smile. He said that we are upside down and inside out to reality.

So from that I would say that truth is revolutionary, that it is transformative, that it is a huge event for the psyche, kind of, and carries with it its own sense of certainty, but a completely different sense of certainty than those who hold opinions have.

To me then the seeking of truth is competitive. Look at me, look at my truth, I deeply need attention. I must fill this inner vacuum, this inner need. But for me the truth is what is when all this seeking has gone away, at the moment one faces ones inner lust and vanity and dies of shame.

For me the truth is not ideas or theories or opinions, but being what one really is, just this wonderfully gifted ape with its moment in the sun. There is no truth because the lover is filled with love and there is no room at all for any opinion. If you know you do not know and if you do not know you know.

Left and right, up and down, all opposites collapse and disappear in being.

 

[Fayd]

The real questions are:
Pumpkin or Sweet potato?
Boston Creme or Coconut Creme?

german chocolate creme.

 

[Fayd]

Oh noes, don't mention pecan pie as it starts the whole pecan debate.

1) How to pronounce it (PuhCan, PeeCan, PeeCon, or PuhCon)

2) Who makes the best pecan pie? Texas or Georgia?

pih-cahn.

neither. i do.

 

[Fayd]

Suppose there were a place where one could check the truth of what one believes, say whether to raise taxes on the rich would be good or bad for the country, as one of an near infinite number of examples, the subject matter of which isn't a part of what I wish to discuss, but merely an example. Each party differs rather fundamentally on what they believe and support. If, by means, let's just call it magic, we could know the truth of what we believe, would you change what you believe, or cling to it regardless because of party allegiance or stubbornness that no mater what some supposed object entity might say, you know you can't be wrong?

As there is some bias to any particular view of data, objective truth is a hell of a lot more complex than anyone is inclined to admit. any political party has to pander to those who cannot, for many different reasons, think logically.

as a statistician, i might observe the results of an infinite dimensional process. I can't represent an infinite dimensional process and make inferences about it, so i reduce the number of dimensions to something i can manage, so i can model it and get statistically viable results. does my model represent reality? no. does it represent a reasonable facsimile of reality? that's a good question: i don't know. no one does.

 

[LunarRay]

Would you still think anyway if some magical truth machine told you it was wrong? Maybe you are that truth machine, on the other hand.

I find it hard to rationalize in hypotheticals. My wee brain seeks reality. I seem to build my fortress today and live in it today... Yesterday is history and provides some relevance for today but much less for tomorrow. I'll deal with tomorrow when it is today.

I would think that each of us believes we have truth in our grasp. To operate without truth or knowingly grasping falsity seems ludicrous. The only issue is finding the mechanism that certifies something is truth... It, the mechanism, does not exist outside our own consciousness, I maintain.

The person who holds that abortion is an abomination has their truth... But, while their truth is fine for them to hold it is not fine to force into the mind of another.... who may hold that abortion is fine. Both of these folks need to examine the totality of their reality... This includes all aspects of their life. In Iran it may be one thing and in the US quite another...

The more our consciousness has developed the less we resemble the ant and its selfish gene... We are individuals more than one of the queen's subjects.

 

[Moonbeam]

As there is some bias to any particular view of data, objective truth is a hell of a lot more complex than anyone is inclined to admit. any political party has to pander to those who cannot, for many different reasons, think logically.

as a statistician, i might observe the results of an infinite dimensional process. I can't represent an infinite dimensional process and make inferences about it, so i reduce the number of dimensions to something i can manage, so i can model it and get statistically viable results. does my model represent reality? no. does it represent a reasonable facsimile of reality? that's a good question: i don't know. no one does.

There is the issue of reduction of dimensions so they can be measured. If there is bias then there will be bias in how those dimensions are reduced, no?

So we are back, I think, to the question of self honesty in introspection. Can a mind bring to consciousness the unconscious bias that may motivate a desire for bias, the avoidance of some old pain, say? If we are biased as I believe we are by feelings we do not know we feel, than the road to understanding what they are lies in feeling them, it seems to me. In short, once there is no hidden emotional needs for bias this way or that, one can do ones statistical analysis is some greater confidence, it seems to me.

This thread is about whether we would give up how we want the truth to be if we could know by unknown means, what it actually is. Most seem to agree that we should face what is real, but the real world says to me that we do not, that we are motivated not to know and not to know if there is any way to know. In short, it seems to me we do not know ourselves very well, hence the bias.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As there is some bias to any particular view of data, objective truth is a hell of a lot more complex than anyone is inclined to admit. any political party has to pander to those who cannot, for many different reasons, think logically.

as a statistician, i might observe the results of an infinite dimensional process. I can't represent an infinite dimensional process and make inferences about it, so i reduce the number of dimensions to something i can manage, so i can model it and get statistically viable results. does my model represent reality? no. does it represent a reasonable facsimile of reality? that's a good question: i don't know. no one does.

"What is Truth?" That would have been asked more than 2000 years ago and I believe is among the greatest of all questions asked.

 

[LunarRay]

There is the issue of reduction of dimensions so they can be measured. If there is bias then there will be bias in how those dimensions are reduced, no?

So we are back, I think, to the question of self honesty in introspection. Can a mind bring to consciousness the unconscious bias that may motivate a desire for bias, the avoidance of some old pain, say? If we are biased as I believe we are by feelings we do not know we feel, than the road to understanding what they are lies in feeling them, it seems to me. In short, once there is no hidden emotional needs for bias this way or that, one can do ones statistical analysis is some greater confidence, it seems to me.

This thread is about whether we would give up how we want the truth to be if we could know by unknown means, what it actually is. Most seem to agree that we should face what is real, but the real world says to me that we do not, that we are motivated not to know and not to know if there is any way to know. In short, it seems to me we do not know ourselves very well, hence the bias.

In the consciousness of the mad man exists the reality they see... We'd look at the behavior of that person and proclaim them to be nuts... Would that cause the nut to reexamine their behavior or better still question why they behave as they do? I think not.... I think one has to know intuitively that they are nutty and seek to remedy that nuttiness. They'd need a standard however... but that is rather easy to construct. Being nutty makes the nut feel good but should it? The standard to rationalize against says no... So... from there we start...

Being in a group of truth seekers is the best environment, I think. With a chaperone... A place ... a sanctuary of truth... where one can bare their soul and dredge up the buried bits...

I seem to keep all the bits that have occurred to me from a very young age even up until today right in the front of my thinking... always asking how this or that may bias my behavior... my thinking. I have a standard... I intuit what should be and question how I'm not there. I don't conform my standard to my behavior but, rather, seek to achieve the standard from where I am... today.

Nasrudin found a computer and a smiling Santa to be a reality that changed his thinking. Nasrudin was riding a bit backwards... The mule knew his destination... The mule always knows... ()

 

[LunarRay]

"What is Truth?" That would have been asked more than 2000 years ago and I believe is among the greatest of all questions asked.

Truth logically exists and, therefore, the question ought not be anything more than how can we recognize it.

Each of us will probably see truth to contain differing factors. That suggests there can't be one universal truth... And that will provide the argument that what I maintain is truth can't be true because you don't agree... totally.

We are biased by every bit of 'stuff' that enters our mind... We rationalize based on these inputs...

I think that if we didn't have anything filtering our thinking we'd all find truth to be exactly the same. Like a robot... every one operating based on the same program will or ought to proceed in identical manner...

Probably.

 

[spittledip]

For me the truth is not ideas or theories or opinions, but being what one really is, just this wonderfully gifted ape with its moment in the sun. There is no truth because the lover is filled with love and there is no room at all for any opinion. If you know you do not know and if you do not know you know.

Left and right, up and down, all opposites collapse and disappear in being.

And yet, when you get up and trip, you rediscover what "down" is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Truth logically exists and, therefore, the question ought not be anything more than how can we recognize it.

Each of us will probably see truth to contain differing factors. That suggests there can't be one universal truth... And that will provide the argument that what I maintain is truth can't be true because you don't agree... totally.

We are biased by every bit of 'stuff' that enters our mind... We rationalize based on these inputs...

I think that if we didn't have anything filtering our thinking we'd all find truth to be exactly the same. Like a robot... every one operating based on the same program will or ought to proceed in identical manner...

Probably.

Well I'm going down the rabbit hole so you ought to be warned.

When I said "What is Truth" I didn't ask whether a given thing is true or false and I maintain this is a critical distinction. I purposefully used "Truth" not "truth" because I can look at a situation and apply contextual boundaries for it's consideration. I then have a basis for comparison when variables come into play. If I am diligent and apply proper reasoning I arrive at "a" truth, meaning in this case a correct assessment. I agree that assuming things as factual based on preference before data prevents us from obtaining "a" truth, and the principle of guarding against bias is a basic necessity for effective evaluation and reasoning.

This however does not address what I consider "The Big T", and that would be the knowledge, or potential knowledge of all things which are true and all things which are false. That is a question which cannot be answered logically even in principle, and so when faced with something that one cannot know then "what is Truth" remains a deeper question than say, what is the binary state of sequence of computer memory. There are some things which cannot be resolved by logic and that gives people fits.

The two gentlemen listed as authors are still rolling around in their graves about the accessibility of truths. The limits they faced aren't a matter of reasoning ability nor computational power, but a larger truth concerning the fundamental nature of reality and "knowability", and I maintain a thing may be true or false, but if it cannot be known as such, it fails as a "Truth" as it cannot aid in a more complete understanding of how things are as opposed to what we think them to be.

Anyway, now I'm rambling

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I'm going down the rabbit hole so you ought to be warned.

When I said "What is Truth" I didn't ask whether a given thing is true or false and I maintain this is a critical distinction. .............................

Anyway, now I'm rambling

My problem is with words. I am not too good at understanding them philosophically. I am trying here to respond to what you said but in order to do so I find I have to think and I can't do so. I don't think I think and although I don't fully grasp the meaning of your words I don't exactly know how to say what my problem is. I go by impressions. I sense patterns, I don't know where or how I come to my notions of things. I am maybe instinctive or maybe putting words to in any way I can to patterns.

I see a difference between a big truth and a fact based notion. How this comes to me is maybe like there is a light on in a room so I can see a table. The table is the fact but the light is the means of seeing. The light is always on, but our unconscious assumptions provide their own false radiance. We see what we want to see, not what is there. This corresponds, I think, to the notion of tea, that if you want to fill your cup with the tea of truth, you must have an empty cup to start with. It is this matter of emptiness that is important to me. It is like light. When the mind is empty it can be filled with what is, not what one wants to see. If one isn't empty of unconscious bias, one will see that bias. How does one empty the mind, that is the question, I think.

So for me there is reality, truth with a small t, and the state of awareness into which reality is reflected, the state of observational consciousness that is the big T. There is what is observed and the state of consciousness in which what is observed is seen as it is. It is because such a state of awareness is possible that accounts say for the fact that Zen swordsman can't be defeated.

I don't know if any of this means anything regarding what you said or not.

 

[MrPickins]

Oh noes, don't mention pecan pie as it starts the whole pecan debate.

1) How to pronounce it (PuhCan, PeeCan, PeeCon, or PuhCon)

2) Who makes the best pecan pie? Texas or Georgia?

It's probably for the best.

Forget about conservative vs liberals, the pu-cahn vs pee-can debate might tear this entire forum apart.

 

[werepossum]

hmmmmm

Maybe I can back into an answer to the proposition you provide.

IF I take a position on an issue... any issue and come to that position based on my assessment of the data which then produced the information independent of any outside input I'd have before me the truth as I see it. I may augment at that point from other sources but with strict scrutiny. My truth, therefore, evolves but it is always started with some intuitive notion of what that probably is.
I don't see how anyone can hold on to a position in a steadfast manner in the face of contradictory or inconsistent data.
It seems the only way to arrive at truth or rather, the probability that some proposition is truth is to develop a hypothesis and go about trying to falsify as well as prove.
IF there is absence of empirically derived truth you are left with some faith based belief that something is true or false...
I am not satisfied that anything faith based has merit when there exists a high probability or even plausibility for some proposition to be true based on a non faith approach to the question.

Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.

As an exercise, imagine dividing the entire nation up into minority groups. Taking the wealth of any one group and using it for the benefit of the other groups leaves the country better off, on average. Extending that logic leads to government taking all wealth and distributing it as government thinks best. Yet those societies have inevitably been worse off than not.

Methinks the OP trumpets his truth in an attempt to build the power of like-minded groups. This is a story as old as mankind.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's probably for the best.

Forget about conservative vs liberals, the pu-cahn vs pee-can debate might tear this entire forum apart.

Since moving to Texas I've heard some heated arguments at the farmers market on the proper pronunciation of pecan. I choose to sit back and watch rather than get involved as it's hilarious to watch see different people throw in their two cents and the resulting comments/reactions.

 

[D-Man]

Seek the truth glasshopper and it will set you flee.

Gimme the facts and a side order of da truth and Im gonna go with dat.

Moonbeam bet you thought I was going to say a side order of pudding eh

 

[LunarRay]

Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.

As an exercise, imagine dividing the entire nation up into minority groups. Taking the wealth of any one group and using it for the benefit of the other groups leaves the country better off, on average. Extending that logic leads to government taking all wealth and distributing it as government thinks best. Yet those societies have inevitably been worse off than not.

Methinks the OP trumpets his truth in an attempt to build the power of like-minded groups. This is a story as old as mankind.

As I will say in response to Hay in a few... I live in a world where philosophy is nice to delve into as a means to augment the thinking process... like logic and stuff and such but I don't think many of the deeper questions philosophers ask are worthy of my time. I could care less about some abstract notion they'd seek to answer.

Having said that, my response to your bolded bit above is simply this: We have decided by our votes to empower those who make the laws which put into effect what you question... I personally am a fiscal conservative but am probably a social liberal at heart... I care more for those with little than those with much but that is only one aspect of the question... I have a reasonable understanding regarding the economic reality of give and take scenarios. I'd rather pump a few more trillion into targeted stimulus programs and put to debt than tax some portion from the rich. I want them to have funds and investment confidence. IF I can put a million to work in tax paying positions I can see a long term benefit... Eventually, the very folks who get the benefit today will pay for it tomorrow... There are so many more of them that a little from the many will easily mean more to the debt than more from the few.

 

[BoberFett]

It's probably for the best.

Forget about conservative vs liberals, the pu-cahn vs pee-can debate might tear this entire forum apart.

As usual, the third parties get excluded from the debate.

It's pee-cahn, the pu-cahn and pee-can parties can both go to hell.

 

[LunarRay]

Well I'm going down the rabbit hole so you ought to be warned.

When I said "What is Truth" I didn't ask whether a given thing is true or false and I maintain this is a critical distinction. I purposefully used "Truth" not "truth" because I can look at a situation and apply contextual boundaries for it's consideration. I then have a basis for comparison when variables come into play. If I am diligent and apply proper reasoning I arrive at "a" truth, meaning in this case a correct assessment. I agree that assuming things as factual based on preference before data prevents us from obtaining "a" truth, and the principle of guarding against bias is a basic necessity for effective evaluation and reasoning.

This however does not address what I consider "The Big T", and that would be the knowledge, or potential knowledge of all things which are true and all things which are false. That is a question which cannot be answered logically even in principle, and so when faced with something that one cannot know then "what is Truth" remains a deeper question than say, what is the binary state of sequence of computer memory. There are some things which cannot be resolved by logic and that gives people fits.

The two gentlemen listed as authors are still rolling around in their graves about the accessibility of truths. The limits they faced aren't a matter of reasoning ability nor computational power, but a larger truth concerning the fundamental nature of reality and "knowability", and I maintain a thing may be true or false, but if it cannot be known as such, it fails as a "Truth" as it cannot aid in a more complete understanding of how things are as opposed to what we think them to be.

Anyway, now I'm rambling

Indeed the rabbit's burrow is filled with chaos and confusion but with a lantern in hand one can at least see what may also lurk within.

I don't think philosophy questions are really questions... No offense meant... But, I see little benefit to sit and ponder the works of Plato, et al. I had to read his 'The Republic' in high school and came away from that experience with more questions than tools to answer them... Probably the fault of the Christian Bros at St. Peters, hehehehehe

I at one point recall saying I viewed stuff as phenomena best answered by empirical methods.
My mistake, I guess.. cuz I was then challenged to separate the consciousness with which I viewed these phenomena from the phenomena themselves in order to understand the structure of the consciousness itself...[Husserl comes to mind] Huh? Why? I see what I see... I have some idea going in what it is and can test that until I arrive at a reasonable probability of what it is. That to me is knowledge and I gained some all the way along the process but it is not the absolute truth and that is fine because I know I can only deal in probabilities given an eternity of time [that sounds weird... eternity of time].
So.. what is the big 'T' actually?... To me it is or points to some repository of all knowledge... like God... or the random introduction of rules and laws created when the universe was... Hidden forever.

That, it could be argued, don't answer consciousness... and why we ask about the big 'T'... Well.. I like baby steps and little 't's are what I find most illuminating. Other than a thinking discipline, Philosophy is best left to those who would rather pontificate an everlasting infinite regression than actually use that intellectual fuel productively hehehehehe

So.. I'd argue that God is Truth unless and until that notion can be falsified. I wonder if there really is a teapot orbiting Saturn.

 

[werepossum]

As I will say in response to Hay in a few... I live in a world where philosophy is nice to delve into as a means to augment the thinking process... like logic and stuff and such but I don't think many of the deeper questions philosophers ask are worthy of my time. I could care less about some abstract notion they'd seek to answer.

Having said that, my response to your bolded bit above is simply this: We have decided by our votes to empower those who make the laws which put into effect what you question... I personally am a fiscal conservative but am probably a social liberal at heart... I care more for those with little than those with much but that is only one aspect of the question... I have a reasonable understanding regarding the economic reality of give and take scenarios. I'd rather pump a few more trillion into targeted stimulus programs and put to debt than tax some portion from the rich. I want them to have funds and investment confidence. IF I can put a million to work in tax paying positions I can see a long term benefit... Eventually, the very folks who get the benefit today will pay for it tomorrow... There are so many more of them that a little from the many will easily mean more to the debt than more from the few.

Philosophically I tend to agree, but we've revised our tax code to the point that most of those benefitting from social programs will never be the ones who are paying for them. The top earners pay for virtually all of government now. Given that, the question becomes a bit more pointed: Do I care about these people so much that I have the right to dip a bit deeper into Bill Gates' pocket on their behalf? We aren't talking about raising taxes on everyone now, we're talking about raising taxes on a small group. Morally, I have a problem with that. Everyone ought to contribute, not just those who "won life's lottery". Contrary to what most young Americans believe, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" is from Marx, not JFK.

Seems to me this is a near-exact duplicate of the gay marriage thing - do I have a right to take away (or keep away) something from someone else in my quest to provide a good society, knowing there can be no adverse effect on me?

 

[Moonbeam]

Well said. There's an important question not addressed in the OP's positing however. If I can be convinced that confiscating more of a particular group's assets is better for the country as a whole, do I then automatically have the moral right to take those assets? The left will always answer affirmatively, the right usually negatively. I say truth, even if it can be ascertained with certainty, should not automatically confer power.

As an exercise, imagine dividing the entire nation up into minority groups. Taking the wealth of any one group and using it for the benefit of the other groups leaves the country better off, on average. Extending that logic leads to government taking all wealth and distributing it as government thinks best. Yet those societies have inevitably been worse off than not.

Methinks the OP trumpets his truth in an attempt to build the power of like-minded groups. This is a story as old as mankind.

But that's simply ridiculous. If you are right than if I have some magic way of knowing for myself you are right and I want to chose truth over my own stupid opinion, I am going to agree with you and never touch power, because doing so would be wrong.

 

[LunarRay]

Philosophically I tend to agree, but we've revised our tax code to the point that most of those benefitting from social programs will never be the ones who are paying for them. The top earners pay for virtually all of government now. Given that, the question becomes a bit more pointed: Do I care about these people so much that I have the right to dip a bit deeper into Bill Gates' pocket on their behalf? We aren't talking about raising taxes on everyone now, we're talking about raising taxes on a small group. Morally, I have a problem with that. Everyone ought to contribute, not just those who "won life's lottery". Contrary to what most young Americans believe, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" is from Marx, not JFK.

Seems to me this is a near-exact duplicate of the gay marriage thing - do I have a right to take away (or keep away) something from someone else in my quest to provide a good society, knowing there can be no adverse effect on me?

A hungry coyote will venture into a home in search of food. How much further will a hungry human go? It seems to me that there is incentive to provide for the very poor lest the folks with become the target of those without. Maybe that is why folks want all the guns...

But, that aside...

Smart people can figure out how to sort the mess out. What does it matter if we create the environment where everyone has the opportunity to work and put to debt. Well... smart people haven't, have they.

These smart folks opted for universal economic programs that creates equilibrium in the US with Uganda, etc. NAFTA and the rest are insane... Perot warned of the wooshing sound and I still hear it.
The US is the worlds largest market arguably and if we were to move toward isolation we'd quickly rebuild our manufacturing and every other aspect of our economy destroyed by our One World Economy.

Regarding the marriage issue... I suppose you can use that analogy but that is a Right... Not sure different from the Right to live but no harm no foul.

 

[MrPickins]

As usual, the third parties get excluded from the debate.

It's pee-cahn, the pu-cahn and pee-can parties can both go to hell.

Awww shit...