--- In [email protected], "Richard M" <compost...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Empty, while I am even more underwhelmed by you
> > spouting dogma than by you acting out your jeal-
> > ousy of Vaj and myself, I perceive the possibility
> > for fun here, so I'm gonna go for it.
> >
> > So I issue you a challenge -- describe for me
> > (and our studio audience) something NON-relative,
> > some "truth" (or anything, for that matter) that
> > can be said to be non-relative or absolute. And
> > you have to do so while using no comparison with
> > anything relative to describe it, and using no
> > relative point of view from which to perceive it.
> > ( Otherwise it's...duh...relative. Right? )
> >
> > I'll wait. :-)
>
> OK, just messin'...
>
> How about
>
> 1. "In any right triangle, the square of the length of the
> hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the lengths
> of the two other sides."
First, the example given is *completely*
relative, meaning that it exists in the
relative universe. Second (and I don't
know the answer to this), you are describ-
ing a two-dimensional object. Would this
mathematical axiom still be as "true" in
three dimensions, or four, or five?
For that matter, just curve the lines of
the three sides of the triangle in two-
dimensional space and you have rendered
the axiom untrue. It's "truth" depends on
the lines being straight.
> Or
>
> 2. "I am in pain" (I just bashed my knee on my desk. I wish
> I could "change my point of view", but it ain't so easy...)
Actually, it is. :-) That's what mindful-
ness is all about.
But, to keep playing, just for fun, define
"pain." My bet is that you cannot without
relating the state or experience you term
as "pain" to something else ("non-pain").
So again, you're stuck with a "relative
truth."
Not to *mention* the quagmire you get into
if I ask you who and what this "I" you
believe is experiencing "pain" is. :-)
> Or
>
> 3. "Cogito ergo sum"
Again, what is this "I" that thinks it is
thinking? :-)
But, still for fun, when "you" are NOT think-
ing (for example, during deep sleep or under
a total anesthetic), do you not exist? If you
believe that you do, your choice of statement
is not "true" in all situations, and thus is
not "absolute."
My point in all of this is simply that one
can nullify the supposed "truth" of any state-
ment I can think of by merely *shifting one's
state of consciousness or POV*. I did so above
by comparing the supposed "truth" of "I think,
therefore I am" as perceived in the waking state
and as perceived in the deep sleep state. Now
get even kinkier and bring supposed "higher"
states of consciousness into the mix.
My larger point is that IMO those who cling to
the things they think they "know" as "truths"
don't radically change their states of consc-
iousness very often. If they did, they would
experience that what seems to be "true" from
waking state is definitely not when perceived
from CC, and that the "reality" is different
again when perceived from UC.
Believing things "true" may be fun when oper-
ating *within one fixed realm of existence and
state of consciousness* (like math or physics,
perceived from normal waking state), but often
its "truths" change even within those same
realms and SOCs. For example, is the behavior
of atoms (their "truth") the same at regular
temperatures as it is a near-absolute zero?
If not, which of these different behaviors
is the "truth" of how atoms behave?
My contention is that *both* are. I reject the
notion of "hierarchy" with regard to "truth,"
the belief that "one truth" is "Truth" and
reigns supreme. I believe that all of these
relative "truths" coexist and are both equally
"true" and equally "false."
But of course I wouldn't claim that that belief
is "true." :-) :-) :-)
Thanks for responding, and in such a fun and
light way. I *understand* that some people (and
especially some people on this forum) get their
buttons pushed when someone challenges an assump-
tion that they have taken for granted for so
long that it has for them become unchallengable.
But challenging the unchallengable assumptions
(like the existence of something called "truth")
is what *I* do for fun.
I don't know shit. I am not *claiming* to know
shit. I'm just having fun challenging pretty
much everything I've ever been told in my life
was "true," to see if I can find a situation
or a POV from which it is *not* true. So far
I have been unable to find a single "truth"
I cannot do this with.
But I'm open to someone producing one. That's
why I posted my "challenge" to Empty. He'll
probably respond by quoting more "authorities"
or playing "shoot the messenger," as he usually
does. I appreciate you playing the game in the
spirit in which it was introduced -- something
to do for FUN, not to "prove" anyone "right"
or "wrong."
