Is there such thing as Absolute Truth?

[AddictRecon]

Drug mentor, would you be interested in a quid pro quo dialogue? With literally ever post being just that, quid pro quo?

 

[Foreigner]

In my experience, most people who claim they are experiencing the Absolute, at all times, are actually spiritually bypassing. How do we know this? Because they are still suffering.

In order to dissolve the ego into the Absolute, you first have to resolve the human level consciousness that the Absolute came in as - which is you. To do this requires resolving the suffering from the perspective of the clear, human level "you" that came in, before the mind-body identifications. No easy task.

Modern psychology gets people to tell a different story, but that doesn't make suffering stop. Most spiritual systems try to get you to abdicate yourself to the Absolute before the self is resolved. (i.e. "I am not these emotions, I am not this person, I am not this situation, I am Oneness" etc.) This also perpetuates suffering... actually, it makes it even worse.

When I say self I'm not talking about ego or other mind-body identifications. I'm talking about the self that you were born as, before it learned that I am this and that is that. Before it learned duality. Usually the first year of life or so. We all come in as non-duality and then we learn duality through the body-mind, and the real-self then begins to process of folding in on itself because it begins to identify with the body-mind before it has developed the cognition to know that it doesn't need to do this. It's almost auto-matic. Then, once we develop cognition later, we spend our entire lives trying to find reunification through externalities, like in relationships, and including spiritual systems that talk endlessly about being the Absolute.

We aren't meant to all be homogenized, wooden spiritualists. Each person is the Divine coming into the world and playing a unique chord. You can't homogenize your chord with anyone else's or abdicate it to the Absolute. If you try, you will suffer. You can't skip the step of becoming and being human. You are always going to be present awareness experiencing this very present moment, as this human level self, until you're dead. You can't go out of body to the Absolute while you're still in a body. All it will do is cause endless health problems and neuroses.

This is something that I see hardly anyone talking about in either the modern psych communities or the spiritual groups.

 

[drug_mentor]

I have no formal training in classical logic.. You are talking well above my paygrade, but that honestly in my experience doesnt disqualify me from the conversation, Ive had people use similar formulas to claim they could refute the existence of God, but thats nonsense

I never implied that your lacking a background in formal logic disqualified you from the conversation, and I apologise if it came off that way. I wasn't sure whether you had the relevant background or not, most people haven't been exposed to much (if any) logic, but most people can't name the LEM or LNC either. I have never heard of anyone using logic to disprove God, though I have seen a natural deduction proof for the existence of God using the modal logic S5; the proof is not a theorem so it is possible to contest the assumptions which the proof relies on, and there is some debate as to whether S5 is too strong to be an adequate logic of necessity and possibility.

I freely admit that I cannot prove them, even if they are objective. What I do know is that in the reality I am experiencing, everything thusfar falls in line with them, and nothing violates them.

If you can't prove these laws, it does seem a little disingenuous to assert them and suggest that the burden of proof lies with those who don't accept them.

Would you mind if I engaged you with the Socratic method, and would you be able to keep your answers short and concise?

Surely you have come across a situation where something has caused you to question these principles?

Feel free to engage.

I have not come across a situation, in the sense which I think you mean (i.e. some kind of subjectively experienced phenomenon which seemed to violate the laws), which caused me to question these principles. I have studied formal logic and philosophy of logic, and there are philosophical problems with the laws - this doesn't mean they are wrong, but they certainly aren't incontestable. I am not a dialetheist, and in most cases I find the LEM philosophically unproblematic - I do endorse logical pluralism, which is to say that I think there is no one correct logic; different logics are appropriate for reasoning in different domains and epistemic circumstances and some of these appropriate formal systems reject the laws in question.

My aim was not to say that these laws are incorrect, I was simply pointing out that you were making some controversial claims and shifting the burden of proof to those who would disagree with them, and, hoping that my pointing this out might generate some interesting discussion on the philosophy of logic. For what it's worth I wholeheartedly agree that even if the LNC fails to hold in some cases there is no meaningful sense in which anything can be "simultaneously everything and nothing".

Drug mentor, would you be interested in a quid pro quo dialogue? With literally ever post being just that, quid pro quo?

I am not really sure what you mean by this, perhaps you could clarify? I am interested in discussing logic, philosophy and particularly the philosophy of logic; if you wan't to discuss those things then I will happily engage with you, though, I am a bit busy at this stage of my life so at times it may take a while for me to respond.

 

[-=SS=-]

His account is flawed, he hasnt died, therefore claiming death as a requirement isnt something even he could know, please dont take this the wrong way, but what he is saying sounds like pure nonsense.

On the contrary, he did die. Whether his heart stopped or not, or for how long he was out, he has no way of knowing as he was alone in his room. All he remembers of the body was an intense pain at the top of his head, so painful he began weeping and he was certain that he was about to die, thinking possibly it was a stroke. What he did experience was a total collapse of all egos, total death of the mind. That is death. The body is a vehicle carrying the mind, allowing for the embodiment and expression of non-physical force. The mind can live without the body, but the body can not live without the mind.

Perhaps everything youve just stated escapes me because of my own intellectual shortcomings, but what exactly are you talking about? What evidence do you have of these dimensions? When you say 'its just not possible to wrap your head around' you are essentially saying the truth is unknowable, but that is antithetical to what truth is, which is knowable, its a matter of deduction.. What you are proposing is what appears to be an inductive argument, and there are major problems with induction. I mean, I know Im a Christian but this getting even a little 'woo' for me..

The Absolute, God, the totality, is not knowable. You can not deduce it or reason it logically, and prove your assertion, using only the relative human mind or physical effects. It's inherently impossible - you can not use something of a finite nature to prove something infinite. The brain can not hold it, no physical instrument can measure it. The only way is to become it, to merge with it, to experience it directly.. then you have the proof. The reason why it is possible for man to become it is because we are inherently connected with it.. the bridge exists within the mind, and it involves awareness. When you trace awareness back to its source you find yourself at this Absolute point, you realize you are the Absolute/God.

So yes, you can't know the Truth. But you can become the Truth.

As a Christian you should be familiar with the phrase uttered by Jesus. "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.". He wasn't joking. He was the Truth. He most definitely had that Absolute experience.

Can you expound on this perhaps? The gentleman you were describing earlier has no direct experience, as one of the requirements he outlined required something he has yet to experience himself..

What evidence can you cite that the principles of logic are malleable?

As I have explained, he has had direct experience of the Absolute. When the mind dies completely, all egos collapsed, death, there should remain nothing.. but there is still awareness. You are still aware. And you become aware of being encapsulated in something far greater than what you knew previously. In that moment you know you are everything, and you are nothing. That is the Absolute/God.

Logic is a function of human thinking and processes. I'm not going to be able to prove its limitations using those same human thinking and processes. You have to step beyond it to get the picture.

How does one measure a centimeter, or weigh a gram, if there is no reference or relationships with which to compare it to? It's all interrelated to other physical elements or processes. If you removed all matter from the universe, how would you know which way is up or down? How fast you were moving, if at all? You can't. It's all done in relation to other points. If you find yourself in a superior position of observation, where everything is resolved to an Absolute point, then there is nothing with which to compare against.

You can't think, reason, or logic your way to an experience of the Absolute. You have to be there. There are methods of achieving that, but logic will only have you chasing your own tail.

 

[AddictRecon]

I never implied that your lacking a background in formal logic disqualified you from the conversation, and I apologise if it came off that way. I wasn't sure whether you had the relevant background or not, most people haven't been exposed to much (if any) logic, but most people can't name the LEM or LNC either. I have never heard of anyone using logic to disprove God, though I have seen a natural deduction proof for the existence of God using the modal logic S5; the proof is not a theorem so it is possible to contest the assumptions which the proof relies on, and there is some debate as to whether S5 is too strong to be an adequate logic of necessity and possibility.

Im currently far too involved with work and attending to my family atm to give a faithful devotion to this conversation we began, but I wanted to say that you in no way made me feel that way, in fact, your responses are a testament to your humility, and graceful approach at polite discourse.

I hope I didnt imply anything that made you feel as though you were anything other than pleasant and refreshing to talk to.

 

[AddictRecon]

On the contrary, he did die. Whether his heart stopped or not, or for how long he was out, he has no way of knowing as he was alone in his room. All he remembers of the body was an intense pain at the top of his head, so painful he began weeping and he was certain that he was about to die, thinking possibly it was a stroke. What he did experience was a total collapse of all egos, total death of the mind. That is death. The body is a vehicle carrying the mind, allowing for the embodiment and expression of non-physical force. The mind can live without the body, but the body can not live without the mind.



The Absolute, God, the totality, is not knowable. You can not deduce it or reason it logically, and prove your assertion, using only the relative human mind or physical effects. It's inherently impossible - you can not use something of a finite nature to prove something infinite. The brain can not hold it, no physical instrument can measure it. The only way is to become it, to merge with it, to experience it directly.. then you have the proof. The reason why it is possible for man to become it is because we are inherently connected with it.. the bridge exists within the mind, and it involves awareness. When you trace awareness back to its source you find yourself at this Absolute point, you realize you are the Absolute/God.

So yes, you can't know the Truth. But you can become the Truth.

As a Christian you should be familiar with the phrase uttered by Jesus. "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life.". He wasn't joking. He was the Truth. He most definitely had that Absolute experience.



As I have explained, he has had direct experience of the Absolute. When the mind dies completely, all egos collapsed, death, there should remain nothing.. but there is still awareness. You are still aware. And you become aware of being encapsulated in something far greater than what you knew previously. In that moment you know you are everything, and you are nothing. That is the Absolute/God.

Logic is a function of human thinking and processes. I'm not going to be able to prove its limitations using those same human thinking and processes. You have to step beyond it to get the picture.

How does one measure a centimeter, or weigh a gram, if there is no reference or relationships with which to compare it to? It's all interrelated to other physical elements or processes. If you removed all matter from the universe, how would you know which way is up or down? How fast you were moving, if at all? You can't. It's all done in relation to other points. If you find yourself in a superior position of observation, where everything is resolved to an Absolute point, then there is nothing with which to compare against.

You can't think, reason, or logic your way to an experience of the Absolute. You have to be there. There are methods of achieving that, but logic will only have you chasing your own tail.

I think I was unclear in terms of this mans experience. But I guess to be more to the point, can he prove what he is saying is true, and without faith in his testimony, how can you know?

 

[-=SS=-]

But I guess to be more to the point, can he prove what he is saying is true, and without faith in his testimony, how can you know?

He was always adamant that one should doubt everything, including him. I've listened to hours of him speaking to small groups at universities in the 70/80's or at his farm and he made reference to this point whenever he could fit it in. The fact of the matter is the proof is in the experience itself.. apart from that either you sense some resonance with what he states or describes in relation to human psychology and experience. Having said that those who were around him on his farm were witness to the odd 'event', especially during rapport sessions (sitting in silence with a group until something happens, like the Quakers do), but again this isn't much use unless you were there to experience it because again we have to take someone elses words.

In short there's not much you can do to prove what he was saying besides having the experience yourself. He died in 2005, just before I started getting interested in this sort of stuff :/ I would have gone to visit him in the US if that weren't the case.

 

[Foreigner]

I've had 3 NDEs in my life time, one in which I flatlined for a good 10 minutes or so.

The monkey mind is part of duality and it's never going to be able to recognize or explain this. In the NDE state the conceptual mind is irrelevant because you aren't you anymore, not in this ego sense.

Logocentricism is a mind-based activity in a bicameral brain but when you're dead the mind ceases.

 

[FnX]

I've had 3 NDEs in my life time, one in which I flatlined for a good 10 minutes or so.

The monkey mind is part of duality and it's never going to be able to recognize or explain this. In the NDE state the conceptual mind is irrelevant because you aren't you anymore, not in this ego sense.

Logocentricism is a mind-based activity in a bicameral brain but when you're dead the mind ceases.

Perhaps, but experience in itself doesn't... in my experience. Naturally as I made it back, it was the mind that eventually made sense of the experience. It happened to "me", however that was the only rational explanation my mind could cook up afterwards, because I, in this ego sense was still here. Meaning, it's an interesting thing. What meaning is there if any when we strip away the context? That's what I think of when the subject of absolute truth comes up. The very words "truth" and "reality" imply a context in which they are being experienced. I think everything is relative when it comes to the experience and for the lack of a better word, witness.

Absolute Truth is a very weird concept (or choice of words) anyway. Truth is a binary value and what kind of binary value could we possibly attribute to the infinity of potential? How would it indeed be even relevant? The symbols that are supposedly guiding us often mislead us, for they are constructs of our own minds and when we try to apply that framework to a concept that simply can't be described using them, it's easy to forget that they are merely something used to point the way and no matter how much you point it will never equal to actually going that way.

Perhaps I'm being complicated to a pointless degree, after all I believe it's the same no matter how many or how few words you choose to put it in. One simple yet hopefully illustrative enough sentence perhaps. Try to imagine what reality is.