Regarding “Again, zero reasons that you, at this time have thought of or respectfully heard of.”

I accept that correction. Can you cite evidence or reasons I’ve perhaps not heard of? Be aware that I’ve read this thread and I didn’t see any. And that I’ve been actively looking into this question since the 1970’s. All sorts of stuff has been passed-off as “evidence” or “reasons” but so far all those have perished under scrutiny.

Regarding “But, this is a lot more words than seems necessary for such a simple concept.”

Exactly. Some things just are. Truth is the word we use to refer to those things. C’est tout.

Regarding “yours doesn’t explain why the truth of one thing is equivalent to the truth of another.”

If two things are, then their existences are “equivalent”. Why would I think their existences were otherwise? If your explanation requires this, that fact would be evidence it is not simple.

Regarding, ““Truth” as I relate to it is not “out-there” but completely and seamlessly integral to the entirety.”

This still seems to make truth distinguishable from the entirety; integral perhaps, but still distinguishable, like a star is distinguishable from the solar system it is a part of.

Truth is not distinguishable from the entirety, it is just how we refer to the existence of the entirety. Truth is not a “part” of the whole, it is an attribute of actual existence. It is not a thing to be found. It is a term to refer to things found. Nothing more is necessary; all other constructions are superfluous.

sean s.

I have also had some bad experiences. It was H.H. that seemed to be “lumping” not you. I realize that my use of language, isn’t always clear. A prime motivator for me to engage in these “talks” is to see what and how things are said. For me, a beautiful turn of phrase, is “true”, in and of itself. Its even more wonderful if the concepts expressed have wisdom, integrity and coherence. It’s always practice towards an ideal. And, as you say the ideal can evolve.

Again, I appreciate your comments.

This part bothers me though, not sure you’ve followed your own rules.

“Truth could be a “thing”; it could; it is True that the possibility exists. But…
It is also True that there is zero evidence of that possibility being real. It is also True that there are zero reasons to think it is.”

Might be more accurate to declare that there is zero evidence that you are aware of, or in language you understand, or testimony that you respect.

As for “zero reason to think it is”

Again, zero reasons that you, at this time have thought of or respectfully heard of.

I feel like I should humbly suggest, that my meaning was more along the lines of; “Truth” as the prototype of “true”, existing as a fundamental potentiality integral to the coherence found in the Universe. And, hypothetically, a single, undivided phenomena throughout all it’s manifestations. Infinite.

But, this is a lot more words than seems necessary for such a simple concept.

I’m also afraid of your shredding it into oblivion since my use of language is “careless”. It’s that darn right hemisphere again.

“Your more complex theory of Truth provides no greater explanatory power than mine”

Actually mine seems vastly simpler to me.. And yours doesn’t explain why the truth of one thing is equivalent to the truth of another.

“Can you prove that some “out-there” Truth DOES EXIST or that it MUST EXIST? If not, then why would I believe that it does?”

Careful, you might be getting tired. “Truth” as I relate to it is not “out-there” but completely and seamlessly integral to the entirety.

I know you don’t believe that this may exist but let’s say it is true. Would you agree that the scientific method wouldn’t be able to measure this new perspective (outside the different brainwaves)?

“because of an attachment to a self”
Probably yes, but that easily can be maintained in a thoroughly materialistic worldview. Materialists don’t have problems with praying and meditation. They reject most of the claims the practitioners attach to it.

It would perfectly your right to not care about colours if you would not able to see colours. But I would respond that it is not because you don’t see them that they don’t exist. And that it is not because I can’t cure cancer with colours that colours aren’t useful…

On that last point, I think it would be very useful to see that a lot of suffering is caused because of an attachment to a self that isn’t what it pretends to be. But in order to see that, you need to escape the mental merry-go-round that the ego built a long time ago. If everybody could see that (i.e.: if you would be in a non-dual state), a lot of problems and suffering would disappear. Religions or patriotism would have no reason to be.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.long

“since I think”
Your thought is wrong. Dualism can’t be materialistic. If mind, like I state, is materialistic it can be researched by science (that’s what neuroscientists do) and it makes no sense to separate it from matter. If there is a component (which I deny) that is immaterial it can’t be researched by science and dualism is correct. That’s what Nagel argues and all believers believe (or no soul, no karma, no reincarnation etc.).

@BRMK 111: “Please don’t lump me in with …”
Don’t worry. I don’t have the faintest idea in what category of believers you and Ca Alors belong. It’s up to you if you are going to tell us or not. I sincerely try only to react on what you guys write here and not to make extra assumptions about your belief systems. Of course I might fail; but I trust you to correct me if I do. Moreover I won’t hold it against you if you change parts of your belief systems; just tell us if you do.
An important reason I like to discuss with you two is because you try to have an intellectually honest debate. I appreciate that very much because of several negative experiences in the past. So maintain!

You have said many times that your non-dualism cannot be described with words, which should warn you to stop trying to. Give us specifics on how to experience it for ourselves, and good reasons to not think these efforts are a “snipe-hunt”.

I don’t really care whether I can personally experience it – just show me that it does something. If scientists or westerners or whomever are trapped in this inferior mental state, then, Ca, use your superior mental state to build a better mousetrap. Or cure cancer. Use it to solve some problem that we inferior-perspective-burdened people can’t solve. I’m perfectly willing to accept that the world is really, truly holistic in a way I can’t perceive…IF this hypothesis can be used to do something my view of the universe can’t do.

A superior or truer mental understanding of the universe should be translatable into actions that the inferior understanding would never predict would work. If your understanding does nothing, then its worth that too.

No elaborate reasoning process is necessary.

You wrote that I “say that “Truth” as an absolute and all-pervasive quality can not exist as a real “thing”.”

Here is a Truth: that’s not what I “said”. There are two reasons:

First; I didn’t “say” anything, I WROTE IT. No elaborate reasoning on that is necessary, it can be observed as a fact. It is True.

Of course I am nit-picking there (another Truth) but for a purpose. It is clear that no deep reasoning process is necessary to establish the Truth of that point.

You may assert that you were writing informally. If you do, that claim asserts that something is True: that you were writing informally.
Such a claim to informality might be True; we cannot observe or test your intent at the time you misstated my comments.

This illustrates another point: we will not always know what is True because our powers of observation are limited. Yet this Truth is still quite simple: either you were actually being informal or you were just careless. Nothing more than that is necessary to understand Truth.

Secondly; I did not write that ““Truth” as an absolute and all-pervasive quality can not exist as a real “thing”.” I wrote that “Absolute and all-pervasive Truth exists only in the truth of many, many distinct things.” At no point did I write that “Truth cannot exist as a real thing.” Your characterization of my comment is Not True. Again, no elaborate reasoning is necessary; one need only read the comments to see.

Truth could be a “thing”; it could; it is True that the possibility exists. But…
It is also True that there is zero evidence of that possibility being real. It is also True that there are zero reasons to think it is.

No elaborate reasoning is necessary; if there are reasons to believe it, no one has presented them. That is a Truth.
If there is evidence, no one has presented it. Yet another Truth.

The other part of my reasoning process is quite familiar: Occam’s Razor; “one should accept simpler explanations until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.” A theory of Truth that makes it some kind of Mystical “thing” is much more complex than just treating “truth” as nothing more than a word we use for the things that just are.

It is true that the simplest theories are not always true (see: Quantum Physics) but that is because sometimes greater complexity provides greater explanatory power (as it does in QM). Reality is not simple, but simpler than some people want it to be.

Your more complex theory of Truth provides no greater explanatory power than mine (another Truth) so Occam ’s razor tells us to choose the simplest explanation.

This is not about “orthodoxy”, it’s about facts. Can you prove that some “out-there” Truth DOES EXIST or that it MUST EXIST? If not, then why would I believe that it does?

Here’s another truth: orthodoxy does not matter either way. Sometimes orthodox ideas are correct.

sean s.

I do admire your precision though.

Yes assumptions can be a problem. When I doubt myself I start over with the single statement “All is God”. Then begin testing my experience of life against that thought. Sometimes I’ll vary it with “Nothing is Not God”, just so things don’t slip through the cracks. (I find it confusing when people want to argue about this.)

There has also been another practice, “Who am I?”, or “Who is this self that asks the question?”.

In the latter case, the point is to NOT have an answer ready for the question. But, to see what is revealed. What is revealed, can be tainted to various degrees by all the subjective folly I’m being warned about in this blog. Through practice one learns objectivity. And, with objectivity, comes quality. Which I am calling “provisional truth”.

Ok, maybe you don’t call this science (I was using it metaphorically before). However, it serves the purpose.

Since I’d like to wrap this up soon, I went back and read my original comment in #91, to see if it still holds up:

“In both, religion and science, true success requires going beyond the individual’s sphere of of perception into the Universal. Nothing less will bear fruit.”

Isn’t this pretty much what we have all been talking about?

Eric has it right. The receptors in your eye don’t “contain” colors, they respond chemically to light within a narrow frequency range. Their chemical response fires-off signals carried by nerves to the visual cortex. What happens in the visual cortex is not entirely understood YET. Give it time tho’. We will figure it out without resorting to magic or mysticism.

You have said many times that your non-dualism cannot be described with words, which should warn you to stop trying to. Give us specifics on how to experience it for ourselves, and good reasons to not think these efforts are a “snipe-hunt”.

As for “mind and matter are not the same” (addressed to MNb). That is neither here nor there. The brain is composed of matter, the mind is just a process, an über-complex system of bioelectric events happening in the brain. There is no need to imagine the mind as some “other” thing, and absolutely no advantage to thinking that the “mind” is supernatural or fundamentally independent of the material brain.

The rotation of a wheel is a process that happens to the matter that is a wheel. Mind is a process that happens to the matter that is the brain. Rotation is much simpler process, but neither rotation nor mind are “other”; they are materialistic processes. Nothing more. When the brain dies, the mind goes with it; if the brain is damaged, so is the mind. There is no reliable evidence to the contrary.

You may regard these things as mere assumptions, but you can give us no good reason to accept your claims as any better, much less true.

sean s.