How do you know you're not blind to so many truths of life?

[TinyBubbles]

You know when you learn a new word, suddenly you notice it in everything you read? What if the same thing is true about more important things, like how life works and what the purpose of it all is..what if our eyes see it but our minds don't perceive it? Is it possible the truth is right in front of us but we're oblivious?

 

[DefectiveCreative]

That's why all dogmatism is so incredibly stupid, there's just no way to know that you know everything you need to know, y'know?

 

[Agnus]

I think the truth is that, there is changes, so there is no possibility to understand the "biggest true" which is permanent, because even then when you are trying to understand it you are changing your thoughts, so it is always happens something new what is unfelt before, so, I guess, we should be always open to new ideas, I think.

 

[randomsomeone]

Is it possible the truth is right in front of us but we're oblivious?

Absolutely!!!!! It is right in front of us but we make many false assumptions about the nature of truth...our assumptions are what blind us. Once we see, become aware, everything changes.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Knowledge is a little overrated. Over 90% is fabrication(based on fiction, based on association, based on fear) or not applicable. Encyclopaedias are full of the rants of sick minds, who argued for centuries about irrelevant illusions and abstractions, because there wasn't anyone to hug them.

I'm very agnostic too, but I feel good that there are things that always work, at least. Like, I drop a ball, it falls. Well, it may not fall someday; then I'd know something really big must be happening with my poor little planet.

Peeling potatoes for the win! (it's easy to grow potatoes, but what if you never had a knife... guess would have to eat them without peeling)

None of our obsessions with knowledge matter that much, because in the end of the day, we are just a self-destructive life form on a tiny planet, and nobody cares about us.

A computer will lose its mind, when it begins to think that it has mind, and it seems that's what humans did.
I'd mind less to be mindless, than to be able to mind being mind-lost.

 

[soulseeker]

None of our obsessions with knowledge matter that much, because in the end of the day, we are just a self-destructive life form on a tiny planet, and nobody cares about us.

A computer will lose its mind, when it begins to think that it has mind, and it seems that's what humans did.

that's so sad

 

[enfp can be shy]

that's so sad

It can only look sad compared to something else we have thought before that; and most probably none of both thoughts was very true. ^^

But sorry if it sounded sad; it also has the potential to sound very encouraging.

 

[sassafras]

While on one hand, I think its important to stay humble and realize that there is no possible way you could collect all the truths in life, on the other, it's important to accept and work with the information you currently believe is valid. There's nothing wrong with your perspective, so long as it has a few air holes for new experiences and new knowledge to seep on in. What I'm basically saying is, accept the fact that you're human and don't get hung up on the fact that there are always going to be things you don't know. There may be a whole wide universe out there to explore, but the reality we experience is subjective.

That being said, I wouldn't dismiss other people for having beliefs in higher power or in a religious dogma, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with your rights. It's just one perspective, a potential truth... perhaps not to your gathering of ideas and psychological wiring, but to a person who shares those beliefs, it's very real.

I think it's funny how people attack religious dogma on the principle of it not being open and accepting of alternative perspectives, yet are guilty themselves of the intolerance they condemn. Particularly when not everyone who is religious or spiritual necessarily conforms to the cluster of ideas that many people like to demonize. Faith by its very nature is subjective, which is why it does not stand up to our objective models of study. But does that mean that it must be dismissed entirely?

If there's anything that I wish we weren't blind to is the idea that knowing all "truths" is not necessarily the holy grail; it's the acknowledgment and openess to different perspectives that truly enriches our experience.

 

[sookie]

I think that truth is something that can be subjective. Then I think that there is truth that is based on your values. I think the truth is (from my experience) is that we need to have wisdom to perceive it. We generate wisdom in many different ways.

Our fundamental darkness that we all must overcome gets in the way of perceiving truth. We need to be ready for it to see it and even more ready for it to act on it.

Truth is not judged or to judge. Truth is to understand. It is not easy to understand in a world that each person is battling the fundamental darkness of arrogance and their own perspective. It is the battles of others fundamental darkness as well as our own that can lead us to truth.

It is the suffering that I had from my father that led me. It guided me to being suicidal. It guided me to being desperate. It guided me to seek.

I sought Buddhism which guided me to heal, and then guided me to suffer, and again guided me to be suicidal, which was necessary for me to change course in life in order to fully be empowered and fully heal.

I am empowered and healing. I am grateful for every moment of suffering because it led me to this place where I feel that I can really help others. Anyone who reads this needs to find their own path in a way that makes sense. My Aunt found Christianity, I found Buddhism. Some people find Islam and others find Wikka while others find Atheism.

What ever your path heal your life as much as you can so that you are no longer enslaved by others anger and ignorance. Just consider this. Take the actions that you need to do in order to not be in the grips of others as much as possible.

I believe that the way to do this is to not perpetuate the cycle of cruelty and anger. I believe that this comes back to me. It is not for me to judge others. It really isnt.

You all need to find the right way for you. For anyone who is battling depression and anxiety there is a better life. Seek the spirituality that makes sense for your life to heal.

I will continue to chant for everyones happiness in whatever way they can find solace and healing.

 

[soulseeker]

It can only look sad compared to something else we have thought before that; and most probably none of both thoughts was very true. ^^

But sorry if it sounded sad; it also has the potential to sound very encouraging.

wow...you're always sensitive to others nah don't worry you didn't bring sadness ahahahah

 

[sookie]

LOL! I dont think I answered the question but became a little preachy. I am sorry. For me I chant. I chant the Mystic Law of cause and effect that is the title of the Lotus Sutra. When I chant I polish my life so I can trust my judgment and trust that what there is to suffer will help grow my life and what there is to celebrate there is to celebrate. This is actually a paraphrase of a famous quote, which I dont have in front of me so I will not try to quote it exactly. Much of what I say has come from the wisdom of others. So I, like Mark Twain said, contribute very little to what I write but offer the wisdom that I have found from people in my life (the amazing people in my life) and the amazing writers that I have read about.

 

[sassafras]

LOL! I dont think I answered the question but became a little preachy. I am sorry. For me I chant. I chant the Mystic Law of cause and effect that is the title of the Lotus Sutra. When I chant I polish my life so I can trust my judgment and trust that what there is to suffer will help grow my life and what there is to celebrate there is to celebrate. This is actually a paraphrase of a famous quote, which I dont have in front of me so I will not try to quote it exactly. Much of what I say has come from the wisdom of others. So I, like Mark Twain said, contribute very little to what I write but offer the wisdom that I have found from people in my life (the amazing people in my life) and the amazing writers that I have read about.

Nah, I found your post interesting

 

[enfp can be shy]

You know, knowledge is too used to be viewed as something of abstract existence. It never exists abstractly though. Every single piece of knowledge, except some limited direct exprience, comes to you, created by other people. Sitting on shoulders of giants, remember. Well, what if the giants were drunk, here and there, what if the giants had their psychotic moments.

So analyzing knowledge now becomes as much a task in (meta)physics as it is a task in psychology. Every single brain is to be viewed as a brain, who gave certain outputs --> try to reason what were the real inputs. It's a very hard problem, that involves the imperfections of your own brain, as much as you are aware of them.

And DIY remains the best philosophy.

There was a song by Pete Doherty "Fuck forever", sorry for the profanity, it seems very right. If anything's certain it should be that nothing is certain, and I would even postulate that every claim will have only limited period of being valid; even the most fundamental laws and elements of physics. And then. Does it really matter that much? For whom? Why. Sick animals who torture each other to bring about this extreme egoism.

 

[sassafras]

You know, knowledge is too used to be viewed as something of abstract existence. It never exists abstractly though. Every single piece of knowledge, except some limited direct exprience, comes to you, created by other people. Sitting on shoulders of giants, remember. Well, what if the giants were drunk, here and there, what if the giants had their psychotic moments.

So analyzing knowledge now becomes as much a task in (meta)physics as it is a task in psychology. Every single brain is to be viewed as a brain, who gave certain outputs --> try to reason what were the real inputs. It's a very hard problem, that involves the imperfections of your own brain, as much as you are aware of them.

DIY

I would definitely agree. Every single piece of knowledge we obtain is filtered through our personal or learned biases. If we're so zeroed in on one methodology, our focus filters out all potentially conflicting information or misses other potential factors altogether.

My theory behind the belief in God/gods as omniscient beings is that it derives from this problem of limited perspectives. It would make sense that if there were a creator, He/She/It/Flying Spaghetti Monster would have all the information to be a impartial, benevolent judge. Perhaps that might have been the original message--when one says follow God as an example, and accept your fellow man, I wonder if that was another way of communicating this openness to experience. Hmm...

 

[enfp can be shy]

(i hope i'm able to stop posting in this thread) Just one more thing.

Brains should be analyzed in their close connection with other brains. Not separately. This remains LARGELY hidden in most of our historical sources. Behavioral psychology wasn't as good in the past, people underestimated the importance of outside stimulus; and that pretty much are parents; lovers etc., so this wasn't always well enough documented.

So the biases of each brain... they aren't formed by magic, on their own. They are molded. It's a never-ending process, which doesn't have a clear beginnig. 1-cells evolved, evolved, and then, you get brains who have been distorted in some ways, so that they distort other brains in other ways. Even though that's not physical reaction, our communications also can be interpreted in physical manner. Actions and counter-actions, forces and counter-forces. Lack of force, pulls force; then this force pushes another lack of force. Key and lock, lock and key (+ increased randomness due to enormous complexity). This is all that shapes us. It doesn't have a meaning, it just is, but some of us are biased to assume it has meaning, because it's important for them to bring that confidence in others.

p.s. about gods... sorry, all the stories are about humans. santa claus is just a human too. i can show you humans even today, who should play god in our small screenplay, and people who should play christ, and john, and the devil. aliens, vampires, ghosts - that's all humans, humans, humans, who looked or acted as required to inspire this in other humans. it's a human society, found in all these stories. they are not bad though, some insights about societies and their developments have been very useful, and still pretty much work, because it's the human condition. how do i know it's humans? they are not original enough. they can't be. they just picked up what they saw, distorted it a little and told it. the distortions are not persuasive enough though, too many small details demonstrate it's all based on other humans and simple reality. they also overheard each other's stories. it's like evolution; the fossils are all there, someone may say some links are missing, but there are so many trends that fit the perfect logical curves of human thought, and reflect real events.

so now the question of gods becomes: okay, we know humans made gods in their own image, but what if there are gods nevertheless; ; ; ; ... well, what if you have a nightmare, should we spend time thinking what if it was true. anything you could think of, could be true, but if you don't even have a good reason to begin thinking about it, then there's no point to keep this option open anymore.

a man saw a lightning in the sky, and thought it was a man, at first. a man in the sky. but it wasn't, he realized it was just a lightning. but by that time, the thought about a man in the sky has already appeared in his brain, so he kept wondering: what if there were a man in the sky.........
the origins of most questions that people ask themselves are accidents and wrong associations. and so many of these questions don't really deserve so much attention as they are being given.

 

[Celsius100]

I like to think sometimes that there's no way we can be sure we have anything right on a universal scale, and that there are things that are completely beyond us that we encounter regularly, that we might overlook because we already have gained what we assume to be a general knowledge of it.

That said, regardless of what is or isn't what we've developed so far is a system that allows society to function with some degree of 'order', I suppose, so I guess I don't mind following it for the most part, but enjoy going astray when intuition tells me there's a bit more going on.

Hopefully I worded that okay, because last time I told someone, they assumed I was either drunk, sleep deprived, or talking in riddle-speak.

 

[Morgain]

the truth is something we will never completely know or grasp

it is like the moon, we can talk about it, we can point at it, we can feel its infuence on us, but we can never hold it.

we are like puppets in a puppet show, we can be aware of the fact that there is more than the show but since we are part of the show, we can never grasp what is behound it or see the bigger picture

 

[sassafras]

(i hope i'm able to stop posting in this thread) Just one more thing.

Brains should be analyzed in their close connection with other brains. Not separately. This remains LARGELY hidden in most of our historical sources. Behavioral psychology wasn't as good in the past, people underestimated the importance of outside stimulus; and that pretty much are parents; lovers etc., so this wasn't always well enough documented.

So the biases of each brain... they aren't formed by magic, on their own. They are molded. It's a never-ending process, which doesn't have a clear beginnig. 1-cells evolved, evolved, and then, you get brains who have been distorted in some ways, so that they distort other brains in other ways. Even though that's not physical reaction, our communications also can be interpreted in physical manner. Actions and counter-actions, forces and counter-forces. Lack of force, pulls force; then this force pushes another lack of force. Key and lock, lock and key (+ increased randomness due to enormous complexity). This is all that shapes us. It doesn't have a meaning, it just is, but some of us are biased to assume it has meaning, because it's important for them to bring that confidence in others.

*nod, nod* Touching up a lot on sociology 101.

p.s. about gods... sorry, all the stories are about humans. santa claus is just a human too. i can show you humans even today, who should play god in our small screenplay, and people who should play christ, and john, and the devil. aliens, vampires, ghosts - that's all humans, humans, humans, who looked or acted as required to inspire this in other humans. it's a human society, found in all these stories. they are not bad though, some insights about societies and their developments have been very useful, and still pretty much work, because it's the human condition. how do i know it's humans? they are not original enough. they can't be. they just picked up what they saw, distorted it a little and told it. the distortions are not persuasive enough though, too many small details demonstrate it's all based on other humans and simple reality. they also overheard each other's stories. it's like evolution; the fossils are all there, someone may say some links are missing, but there are so many trends that fit the perfect logical curves of human thought, and reflect real events.

I don't know if you were necessarily responding to my point or merely using it as a jump-off, but I would like to clarify that I was talking about this problem of limited being a source of inspiration for the concept of God. Many of the "characters" you describe in your post were also likely inspired by holes or the need to pass on certain knowledge, which is the very reason why they appear so human.

I think its important not to underestimate the potency of information in an archetype or to dismiss it as a thought fallacy or not a question to be worth asking. All archetypes are compact units of instinctive, interpretive and pattern-based knowledge that can be built upon and expanded. It's not a rigid fact, but rather a starting point for many potential discoveries and ideas. They're meant to trigger further thought processes because they, by their very nature, are interpretive units. Enfpcanbeshy may have called these "distortions," but I call them the evolution of ideas. There's a reason we're so fascinated by them and why these foundations haven't completely dropped away after all this time. They contain information that we still find relevant, even though we're apt to interpret them differently.

That being said, I don't think these human creations of Santa Claus, God, Devil, etc. etc. were necessarily meant to be proven or negated as human or otherworldly entities, but rather as tools for passing along ideas. After all, all of these archetypes that we know and love were born of an oral culture that thrived on metaphors and symbols because it was easier to communicate compartmentalized information in stories and familiar patterns rather than strung out and stretched theories and treatises. Very few people nowadays have the ability to instinctively grasp and understand speech riddled with metaphors; our modern day mindset is efficiency and saying what you mean. In strictly oral cultures, on the other hand, you'll find that even the most common man can express himself in a way we would say is "creative."

And that, if anything, is a testament to human perspective. We understand and communicate our ideas much, much, much differently than our ancestors. Like enfpcanbeshy touched upon, methods of communication and our environment shape our ideas and shape how we relate to one another and even our own understanding of the universe. You can take these archetypes and scoff at how someone could actually believe that a Santa Claus or a God actually existed, or you can look beyond the surface and see that there was a reasoning behind these human creations. Another layer of the truth? Heck yes.

 

[randomsomeone]

In the end, truth is not about knowledge (although this may have a small part to play). The secret is.....truth is about connection. Sounds simple, but the connection we are talking about is immensely huge, immensely rich, and all the combined experience of every mystic in every religion that has ever existed has not begun to grasp the scope of this truth. We do get glimpses....and these only reveal to us that the truth affords us the unbelievable dignity of having to make the journey ourselves. In this way it is based on experience, on awareness. This is why the mystics all fall silent at some point. In the end, we seek to posess the truth, but what happens is that the truth (due to it's magnitude) takes hold of us...we are posessed by it's embrace. No complexity found in the natural world, or in the human mind, or in all the galaxies can compete with the rich diversity and nuanced richness found in ultimate truth. When you find it your mind will shut down....silence, peace, and gratitude are all that is left. So there are objective truths, but our assumption is that these truths are limited. They are not. A paradox, eh?

This may not make sense, but I wanted to try to at least open the door to something far more complicated than we might imagine. Finding truth is no cheap thrill-ride...we have to let go of everything to find it, and there is much in the human person that flatly refuses to do this. Why? We fear we will lose. In the end, this fear is totally unfounded inasmuch as the exact opposite happens, although we are greatly transformed. This should not shock us really.....an encounter with truth is no casual stroll in the park.

Many want to find/accept only truth that agrees with them, their position, their ego...we are very much afraid. To find truth we have to ultimately let go completely. And yes, one does find that we are like fish swimming about looking for the ocean, only to find we were in it all along.

A word about dogma and such. Religious systems use dogma and structure primarily to perpetuate a system of ideas for future generations. However, these dogmas....if one scratches beneath the surface...are only pointers to a much, much greater set of truths, the one's described above. It's as if at the heart of dogma is a door...a door too few are willing to pass through. It is a door to total human liberation and enlightenment. Now our assumption is that dogmas are truth...but really they are doors. The funny thing is that dogmas practically state this...we seem to miss that point.

Sorry if I've confused anybody by my throwing words at the subject.

 

[sassafras]

In the end, truth is not about knowledge (although this may have a small part to play). The secret is.....truth is about connection. Sounds simple, but the connection we are talking about is immensely huge, immensely rich, and all the combined experience of every mystic in every religion that has ever existed has not begun to grasp the scope of this truth. We do get glimpses....and these only reveal to us that the truth affords us the unbelievable dignity of having to make the journey ourselves. In this way it is based on experience, on awareness. This is why the mystics all fall silent at some point. In the end, we seek to posess the truth, but what happens is that the truth (due to it's magnitude) takes hold of us...we are posessed by it's embrace. No complexity found in the natural world, or in the human mind, or in all the galaxies can compete with the rich diversity and nuanced richness found in ultimate truth. When you find it your mind will shut down....silence, peace, and gratitude are all that is left. So there are objective truths, but our assumption is that these truths are limited. They are not. A paradox, eh?

This may not make sense, but I wanted to try to at least open the door to something far more complicated than we might imagine. Finding truth is no cheap thrill-ride...we have to let go of everything to find it, and there is much in the human person that flatly refused to do this. Why? We fear we will lose. In the end, this fear is totally unfounded inasmuch as the exact opposite happens, although we are greatly transformed. This should not shock us really.....an encounter with truth is no casual stroll in the park.

Many want to find/accept only truth that agrees with them, their position, their ego...we are very much afraid. To find truth we have to ultimately let go completely. And yes, one does find that we are like fish swimming about looking for the ocean, only to find we were in it all along.

A word about dogma and such. Religious systems use dogma and structure primarily to perpetuate a system of ideas for future generations. However, these dogmas....if one scratches beneath the surface...are only pointers to a much, much greater set of truths, the one's described above. It's as if at the heart of dogma is a door...a door too few are willing to pass through. It is a door to total human liberation and enlightenment. Now our assumption is that dogmas are truth...but really they are doors. The funny thing is that dogmas practically state this...we seem to miss that point.

Sorry if I've confused anybody by my throwing words at the subject.

So, in a nutshell, you're trying to say that reality (and therefore the search for truth) is subjective?