Is there such thing as Absolute Truth?

[OneTwoSeven]

The goal of spiritual seeking seems to be the discovery, realisation and living in Absolute Truth, Absolute Enlightenment, the Ultimate, union with God, All-Knowing or whatever you want to call it.

My question is - is there even such thing as Absolute Truth / Enlightenment?
Although I would certainly like that, since if there was, that would be indeed worthy goal to pursue, but I cannot see how could that be. Life and Absolute seem to contradict each other. Life is ever-changing, renewing every moment, so even if one would reach the enlightenment it would be outdated a second later, it seems to me.

Anything absolute seems static and dead to me. Perhaps the Absolute is available only outside of time-space continuum, where the time supposedly stops? Therefore it would be outside of life as we know it. So, would one need to die to reach that state? Sages like Jesus or Buddha appeared to be inside of space-time though, while still claiming the Truth. Were they delusional?

It seems to me that in this time-space reality, everything is subjective and all the truth we can hope for is the subjective truth of "ourselves" - meaning, striving to meet our own standards, being true to our conscience, which, although highly subjective, doesn't seem any less valid than any other "truth".
Granted, our standards and values might not be ours to begin with, eg. conditioned by parents, society etc., so there might be some work involved in finding or setting one's "real and true*" values and living according to that. (* true for the time being)

Or perhaps what seekers are really striving for is the experience of the Absolute, the ultimate thrill, however brief, after which they are back when they started in the first place.

What do you think?

 

[vortech]

You seem to answer your own questions pretty well. Indeed, human consciousness by nature seems terminally subjective, while absolute is the absence of colored perception, thought, feeling or comprehension; immutable.

If you find purpose in seeking enlightenment, by all means seek enlightenment, knowing that it is a great journey with a practically unattainable destination. The path to enlightenment may look a lot like an asymptote. You may get very close to a state of absolute truth at the peak of your practice, but as you mention, it may only be after death in a return to Oneness with the Universe that it is attained. That said, I like to think it is possible simulate for a period in spiritual experiences, but we can't be on the mountain top all the time. When my ego is silent and mind blown, listening to music without judgement, not perceiving it but viscerally feeling the nature of the energy as I let it pass through without resistance. I call this level of consciousness 'clear receptor'. I'm not sure if I am ready to reach for states that dissolve my self any more than that.

 

[OneTwoSeven]

Thanks for the response and making me exercise my memory on "asymptote"

absolute is the absence of colored perception, thought, feeling or comprehension; immutable.

Isn't being in that state basically like death? How would one even know that he is alive?

I like to think it is possible simulate for a period in spiritual experiences, but we can't be on the mountain top all the time.

Yes, I wondered whether it would be possible to maintain that state in daily life and I agree with you that it doesn't appear so, especially if one wants to engage with life, to communicate with other people for example.
It seems to me an "either-or" predicament. Either one participates in life, thinks, feels, laughs and cries, or transcends it all and rests in emptiness, somewhat lobotomised. (Just thinking out loud, I could be wrong)


Perhaps the better question would be then whether it's possible to come back at will to that "high" state.

it may only be after death in a return to Oneness with the Universe that it is attained.

I sure hope so. Although according to Jesus "Dead know nothing”, whatever that might mean.

When my ego is silent and mind blown, listening to music without judgement, not perceiving it but viscerally feeling the nature of the energy as I let it pass through without resistance. I call this level of consciousness 'clear receptor'.

Sounds great indeed. I'm able to get into similar state with drugs, when sober, those states seem completely out of reach to me.

 

[AddictRecon]

Anything absolute seems static and dead to me

Are you absolutely sure? Is 3 not absolutely prime? Do you absolutely exist?

There has to be a truth that all truth can rest on, something that all truth is contingent on, something that is true no matter what.

I believe that truth is God. Everything that is true is true, and can be true, because God is the bedrock, the very foundation which our true reality is contingent on for its existence.

 

[OneTwoSeven]

Is 3 not absolutely prime?

Well, I'd say that 3 is "relatively" prime.
Both 3 and "prime" are essentially thoughts,concepts. The don't seem to have any "actual" existence (we cannot touch 3). We agreed among us that we consider 3 a prime, in the realm of thought system/map we call mathematics.
Can any thought system be absolute though? It's a symbol, or approximation, of one small part of reality.

Do you absolutely exist?

Good one! I can touch my head and therefore I can confirm I seem to exist at this moment. Indeed whenever I check whether I exist, I do. But what about the time when I am asleep? I have no way of knowing whether I exist then or not. If my body wouldn't wake me I could've go to sleep one time and sleep a 1000 years, dreamlessly, without even realising it.

Can I ask, have you ever experienced what you call God? If not, isn't the God you speak of the thought in your head?
Or, if you did experience God, would you tell me about it please.

 

[AddictRecon]

Well, I'd say that 3 is "relatively" prime.
Both 3 and "prime" are essentially thoughts,concepts. The don't seem to have any "actual" existence (we cannot touch 3). We agreed among us that we consider 3 a prime, in the realm of thought system/map we call mathematics.
Can any thought system be absolute though? It's a symbol, or approximation, of one small part of reality.


Good one! I can touch my head and therefore I can confirm I seem to exist at this moment. Indeed whenever I check whether I exist, I do. But what about the time when I am asleep? I have no way of knowing whether I exist then or not. If my body wouldn't wake me I could've go to sleep one time and sleep a 1000 years, dreamlessly, without even realising it.

Can I ask, have you ever experienced what you call God? If not, isn't the God you speak of the thought in your head?
Or, if you did experience God, would you tell me about it please.

My experience with God was limited, if at all recognizable before I gave my life to Christ. God was an abstract concept back then.. I dont fully understand the mechanics of how He changed me, or brought me the peace in my spirit, or gave me the knowledge and wisdom to do what is right, I just know it happened. Before Christ, I essentially cared about myself first and foremost, but this brought me nothing but problems.. The times I did put others before me was to appear righteous, and my humility had an alternate motive ultimately meant to serve my ego. Christ has given me a new set of eyes, eyes that allow me to see other people as I see myself, allowing me to put myself in their shoes, no matter who they are, and while this sometimes brings grief, and a lot of tears, it completely reshaped how I view others, and it allows me to love people regardless of their shortcomings.

Gods voice has never been audible in the sense that I hear something with my ears, I can only describe it as form of intense intuition one cannot escape.. When God tells me to help someone, and I dont listen, or try to tune Him out, the internal battle between myself and Him is more than I can bare, and if He distances himself from me because of my resistance, the old feelings of depression, sadness, ect.. seem to come flooding back.

I was able to kick drugs entirely, not because I wanted to, but because the joy Ive found in Christ trumps any known pleasure Ive sought for myself, there simply is nothing to compare it too.. Another aspect of my salvation that I would never forfeit is the 'absolute' and I mean that in the definition of the word, the absolute lack of fear in my life, Id never known that before I gave my life into Christs hands, He took it from me. Fear of death was a real thing for me most of my life, but that fear no longer exists, I could die today, or in 42 years, it makes no difference to me, so long as I can serve Christ in the interim, that is what matters to me.

 

[vortech]

according to Jesus "Dead know nothing", whatever that might mean.

Dead know nothing, and nothing is absolute. So yes, dead know absolute

 

[OneTwoSeven]

Dead know nothing, and nothing is absolute. So yes, dead know absolute

Aha! Could be!

My experience with God was limited, if at all recognizable before I gave my life to Christ...

Thank you for sharing AddictRecon, I'm sure glad to hear you kicked the drugs and found new source of joy in life.
Can I ask then, what do you do nowadays? I mean "after" Christ. I would imagine different set of motivations than "before". Basically how do you function, being one with Christ? For example, some people after enlightenment quit their jobs and start completely new activity, more in tune with their newfound knowledge.

 

[AddictRecon]

Thank you for sharing AddictRecon, I'm sure glad to hear you kicked the drugs and found new source of joy in life.
Can I ask then, what do you do nowadays? I mean "after" Christ. I would imagine different set of motivations than "before". Basically how do you function, being one with Christ? For example, some people after enlightenment quit their jobs and start completely new activity, more in tune with their newfound knowledge.

Funny you say that.. I was a pot farmer before I gave my life to Christ. One of the things I made central in my life was money.. I made a lot of it. When I gave my life to Christ, the internal struggle of whether what I was doing could be justified became more than I could bare. Ultimately I chopped down all my gals, about 20k worth and tossed them.. Without employment and growing to rely on, I set myself to prayer for guidance on what to do next.. Within days, I got a call from my brother about a job in construction he was looking to fill, and while I never in a million years would have seen myself doing something like that, I took the job, which I currently have to this day. The work is hard, the pay isnt that great, but I get it honest and Ive never slept better.. Im learning to live a life in service to others, putting others before myself.. Since then my life has completely turned around, and while I dont have the financial fortitude I once had, Im oddly much happier now than I was then. I remember thinking at one point why my life was in such disarray, I had a wonderful wife, money, big house, cars.. everything a guy could want, and I was miserable inside.. Without all that stuff (still married to my wife) I am more happy than ever before, and I thank God for my blessings..

Thanks for asking

 

[-=SS=-]

My question is - is there even such thing as Absolute Truth / Enlightenment?

Having not experienced it myself I can only say I believe there is, and I do wholeheartedly believe there is.

My understanding from reading and listening to someone who claims to have experienced it (and again, I believe his story), experiencing the Absolute requires one to become that. It can't be had whilst living, transcribed through and held by our fleshy apparatus. You have to die. Only then do 'you' merge with this thing called God/Absolute, the paradox being that when you get there so to speak there is only 'you'.. you are that, simultaneously everything and nothing. So yes, you have to step outside space-time as we know it, but you also have to come back.. it's possible to only go one way

Life and the Absolute don't contradict each other. Life may seem ever changing and in motion, but that is a construct and byproduct of our fleshy apparatus decoding this absolute reality in bitesize chunks, so that we may navigate it and fulfill our programming. In truth there is no time, and without time there is no motion either.

I don't think we're supposed to know the Truth. Though the door has been left unlocked should anyone really wish to have the ultimate answer. It doesn't serve any practical purpose to human existence. As individuals it may answer questions and bring resolution, but for human society itself it doesn't really.

There's two individuals who I would recommend reading around if you're interested in this business of the Absolute. One is Ramana Maharshi. The other is Richard Rose (Link to his description of the experience: http://www.searchwithin.org/download/realization_richard_rose.pdf)

 

[AddictRecon]

My understanding from reading and listening to someone who claims to have experienced it (and again, I believe his story), experiencing the Absolute requires one to become that. It can't be had whilst living, transcribed through and held by our fleshy apparatus. You have to die. Only then do 'you' merge with this thing called God/Absolute

How do you know someone who claims to have died?

the paradox being that when you get there so to speak there is only 'you'.. you are that, simultaneously everything and nothing. So yes, you have to step outside space-time as we know it, but you also have to come back.. it's possible to only go one way

There is no such thing as a logical contradiction, the laws of logic are unbreakable, something cannot be both everything and nothing, these are logically contradictory principles. There is no such thing as a married batchelor, or a square circle, which is what you are suggesting here. No matter how great a persons imagination is, the laws of logic necessarily cannot be violated, reality rests on these principles, to suggest otherwise is tantamount to absurdity.

If you want to try and disprove them, go ahead, this should keep you busy, forever.

The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

 

[cduggles]

In reply to your question, I do believe in an absolute truth.
As a human, I believe the search begins with self-knowledge and sympathy for others, which ultimately culminates into empathy.
The state of increased empathy brings one closer to absolute truth through an increasingly deeper understanding of alternative, although subjective, views of the truth.
I believe the search for self-knowledge is a very long path, and sometimes excruciating (sometimes not ). The journey to achieve empathy is lifelong, both with those closest to us as well as encounters with the unfamiliar.
I do not believe that one should wait for a perceived high level of self-knowledge to explore the perspectives of others. I believe that through increasing understanding of others we do understand ourselves more completely in a reactive sense.

What does another person feel, in both a positive relationship/connection as well negative relationship/conflict, about you? (I mention positive relationships because there seems to be an unhealthy focus sometimes on resolving negative interactions as opposed to deepening connection, which is strengthening.) Do you understand that person's perspective relative to you and their own filters? After that, in my experience, the path to empathy is very personal.
Also, what does a particular animal feel, perhaps a pet? It's been fascinating, and frustrating sometimes, to understand the behavior of an animal to whom I feel close, in a unique way.
Obviously there is also a more outward focus on all creatures to whom we are not close. Again, I believe that this should be explored when the opportunity arises within, as opposed to strict stages.

Plants live, in my opinion, and it's nice to have them around and experience their presence and take good care of them.
I wish I had a delicate touch and could perhaps raise a bonsai or something like it. Some caretakers have been taking care of their bonsai trees for decades.

I'm not ruling out a relationship with any living thing, and for me, the relationship doesn't have to resolve in what I perceive to be an expected format. For example, I eat meat. I have reconciled that relationship with animals after becoming a vegetarian and a vegan, that for serious health reasons, I can't maintain either. Therefore, for instance, I choose free-range as opposed to farmed meat when possible.

 

[drug_mentor]

There is no such thing as a logical contradiction, the laws of logic are unbreakable, something cannot be both everything and nothing, these are logically contradictory principles. There is no such thing as a married batchelor, or a square circle, which is what you are suggesting here. No matter how great a persons imagination is, the laws of logic necessarily cannot be violated, reality rests on these principles, to suggest otherwise is tantamount to absurdity.

If you want to try and disprove them, go ahead, this should keep you busy, forever.

The law of identity: P is P.
The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

This is an interesting topic. Formally, the law of non-contradiction is actually the negation of A and not-A (~(A & ~A)), where A is any well-formed formula (wff). What you have stated is closer to the equivalence of A and ~~A in classical logic, if we charitably interpret your use of 'is' as designating neither the 'is' of identity or the 'is' of predication, but instead standing for the biconditional (<--->) which indicates logical equivalence.

Neither the law of non-contradiction (LNC) or the law of excluded middle (LEM) are uncontroversial, and there have been various formal logics formulated which reject one of these principles (I don't know of any that reject both), for example, intuitionistic logic rejects the LEM (incidentally, by defining negation in such a way that the inference from ~~A to A is no longer valid, so that LEM is no longer tautologous); Graham Priests Logic of Paradox rejects the LNC, Priest has written a couple of good books where he advocates dialetheism - the view that there are true contradictions (Doubt Truth to be a Liar and In Contradiction, though the latter may be a bit difficult if you lack a background in formal logic).

The primary motivation for dialetheism is the intractability of self-referential paradoxes (though, this is not the only motivation). For example, the Liar Paradox - 'This sentence is false', which seems to be both true and false. Another example is Russell's Paradox; contemporary axiomatic systems of set theory all posit ad hoc devices in order to avoid the paradox, prominent dialetheists maintain that naive set theory is the correct formulation of set theory and accept Russell's Paradox.

In classical logic there is the principle of explosion, also known as ex falso quodlibet, which says that you can infer anything from a contradiction. If one thinks there might be true contradictions then this is clearly an inadequate formalisation of reasoning, because this would basically entail that everything is true (a doctrine which Priest refers to as trivialism).

These 'laws' are not uncontestable, I have given some prima facie motivation for thinking that the LNC may be false. I have certainly not 'disproven' it, but obviously much more could be said on the matter. It is worth noting that you have not proven any of these laws, you have merely asserted them. I expect that trying to prove the LNC would keep you busy for a rather long time, unless you were to prove it using a formal system in which the LNC is tautologous, which would clearly be begging the question.

 

[-=SS=-]

How do you know someone who claims to have died?

I can't prove it. I can only state that I believe his account, that I find his words to be sincere. It also helps that his actions and life story give tremendous weight to his sincerity.

There is no such thing as a logical contradiction, the laws of logic are unbreakable, something cannot be both everything and nothing, these are logically contradictory principles. There is no such thing as a married batchelor, or a square circle, which is what you are suggesting here. No matter how great a persons imagination is, the laws of logic necessarily cannot be violated, reality rests on these principles, to suggest otherwise is tantamount to absurdity.

The laws of logic are constructs of a relative dimension. We're talking about an Absolute dimension, hence there is no contradiction when one says they experienced everythingness and nothingness simultaneously when at that Absolute point. The Absolute is everything that exists, and it is also nothing. You can't relate to that Absolute dimension from within the relative, it's just not possible to wrap your head around it.. you can't perceive infinity with a finite mind, you can only become it.. that's the only way.

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao"

Unless you have some direct experience, come close to the realization, or have a strong intuition, then words will always fail to convey what is meant regarding the Absolute. To try and approach it with logic is foolish. Logic is a vanity.

 

[AddictRecon]

I expect that trying to prove the LNC would keep you busy for a rather long time, unless you were to prove it using a formal system in which the LNC is tautologous, which would clearly be begging the question.

I would argue that trying to disprove it would take longer.. Can you cite an example of a valid logical contradiction? John says Jessica is a great person, Bill says Jessica is a terrible person, both could be correct, but this isnt a logical contradiction, its circumstantial and entirely relative.. I could cite evidence to support the LNC ad nauseam, which ascribes validity.

The premise could be written in variables, a is not b. (a cannot be both a and b) Or in the strictest of terms, 1 is not 0, necessarily.

The entire point of my statement is that a logical contradiction doesnt exist in principle or reality as we know it. Now if we wanna play with our imaginations Im sure we could have some fun with this, but thats not really something Im interested in at all, I like to get down to brass tax, what can we know, what foundation can truth rest on, and if the principles of logic can be shown to be malleable, then reality as we know it is in question.

To even say absolutes dont exist requires an absolute statement, its self contradictory, and the premise is flawed.

fwiw, Im not a presuppositionalist persay, I mean I think they have valid arguments In some regards that I could get behind, but I consider myself a staunch evidentialist, which I understand presents problems for some philosophers.


If I was to describe philosophy in my own words, Its the search for the truth.. I believe I know the truth by which all truth is contingent. Why all peripheral truths can be true to begin with, and I believe that foundation for truth is God, but I would only be able to give evidence, because trying to prove God would in fact require me to beg the question, which is why I dont, nor do i think that responsibility is mine to begin with, considering I am appealing to sentience outside of my ability to control, but that very responsibility falls on God Himself, not me..

 

[AddictRecon]

I can't prove it. I can only state that I believe his account, that I find his words to be sincere. It also helps that his actions and life story give tremendous weight to his sincerity.

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.

The laws of logic are constructs of a relative dimension. We're talking about an Absolute dimension, hence there is no contradiction when one says they experienced everythingness and nothingness simultaneously when at that Absolute point. The Absolute is everything that exists, and it is also nothing. You can't relate to that Absolute dimension from within the relative, it's just not possible to wrap your head around it.. you can't perceive infinity with a finite mind, you can only become it.. that's the only way.

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..

Unless you have some direct experience, come close to the realization, or have a strong intuition, then words will always fail to convey what is meant regarding the Absolute. To try and approach it with logic is foolish. Logic is a vanity.

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?

 

[drug_mentor]

I would argue that trying to disprove it would take longer.. Can you cite an example of a valid logical contradiction?

How would you argue that, then? It is odd to assert what you would argue, without actually providing an argument (at least in this context).

Sure, actually, I already did (though, I did not demonstrate it). I will cite the Liar, because it is simpler in terms of formal notation. Let p be 'this sentence is false'. Formally, we have the biconditional p<-->~p (since the sentence being true entails the falsity of the sentence, and the falsity of the sentence entails its truth). Here is a rather simple proof which rests on this biconditional and p:
{1}(1)p<-->~p Assumption
{1}(2)p-->~p & ~p-->p 1 Definition of <--->
{1}(3)P-->~P 2 &-Elimination
{4}(4)p Assumption
{1,4}(5)~p 3,4 Modus Ponens
{1,4}(6)p & ~p 4,5 &-Introduction

It should be clear that by inferring the second conjunct of line 2 on line 3 by &-elimination and assuming ~p instead of p I could validly infer the same contradiction.

 

[AddictRecon]

How would you argue that, then? It is odd to assert what you would argue, without actually providing an argument (at least in this context).

Sure, actually, I already did (though, I did not demonstrate it). I will cite the Liar, because it is simpler in terms of formal notation. Let p be 'this sentence is false'. Formally, we have the biconditional p<-->~p (since the sentence being true entails the falsity of the sentence, and the falsity of the sentence entails its truth). Here is a rather simple proof which rests on this biconditional and p:
{1}(1)p<-->~p Assumption
{1}(2)p-->~p & ~p-->p 1 Definition of <--->
{1}(3)P-->~P 2 &-Elimination
{4}(4)p Assumption
{1,4}(5)~p 1,3 Modus Ponens
{1,4}(6)p & ~p 4,5 &-Introduction

It should be clear that by inferring the second conjunct of line 2 on line 3 by &-elimination and assuming ~p instead of p I could validly infer the same contradiction.

Perhaps I wasnt clear, Im an evidentialist..

Can you cite evidence that any of the aforementioned principles of logic are in fact not objective? Im not talking about theoretical concepts are abstracts, we can play with our imaginations all day, but Im honestly not interested in that.

For example, do you have evidence of a square circle? And if you do, might I review this evidence?

 

[drug_mentor]

Perhaps I wasnt clear, Im an evidentialist..

Do you mean that you are an empiricist? I just gave you some evidence in the form of a logical proof, using no less than classical logic, that one can validly infer a contradiction from what seem like reasonable premises. I have used logic to provide evidence that one of your putative logical 'laws' is not as certain as you have asserted that it is. Surely, when the domain of discourse is the laws of logic, a valid logical proof qualifies as relevant evidence in said domain.

It is odd that you ask whether I have evidence of a square circle, I never claimed I did. I never said all contradictions are true, in fact, I never said any were; however, I am much less certain on the matter than you are (and, I think, justifiably so).

 

[AddictRecon]

Do you mean that you are an empiricist? I just gave you some evidence in the form of a logical proof, using no less than classical logic, that one can validly infer a contradiction from what seem like reasonable premises. I have used logic to provide evidence that one of your putative logical 'laws' is not as certain as you have asserted that it is. Surely, when the domain of discourse is the laws of logic, a valid logical proof qualifies as relevant evidence in said domain.

It is odd that you ask whether I have evidence of a square circle, I never claimed I did. I never said all contradictions are true, in fact, I never said any were; however, I am much less certain on the matter than you are (and, I think, justifiably so).

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, God isnt falsifiable, that is to say i cannot prove or disprove God without evidence that God doesnt exist, or God Himself to prove His own existence, simply put, I am not God. Empiricist? Thats hard to answer, because with all the sentient minds defining what that actually means its difficult to say if I am or not. Id like to think I am.. But being me, and not you, I cant expect you to process evidence the way I do, which is why even though my understanding may be objective, its arrived at in a subjective way, so I think, and I may be wrong, that I am only capable of giving you my opinion. does that make sense?

What I know is that I have invested a lot of thought into the 3 principles of logic, but I have never come across a real life scenario where something violated one of these principles, which I believe is evidence for and a testament to there validity.

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.


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?