Truth and Belief

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A group is a collection or assemblage, verified as such because of some sort of discernible replication, an apparent agreement.

---

perplexity,

Are you inferring an objective agreement, a purely objective truth?

Please clearify.

[perplexity]

Metaphysical science confirms that any supposed object to examine is in the final analysis an object of belief.

"Reality" exists "forever", but only until it hurts, thus usurped as if by stealth.

Whatever refuses to change is per se belief, not agreement.

Truth is thus a narrative issue, distinguished as such by pain.

Truth hurts because we cling to delusion.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Isa

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow this reasoning; could you please delineate it for me?

Or, at least, say what it means.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

The Assumption of truth without the benifit of the actual experience of the relation in question can never be more than a degree of probability, an educated quess you might say. On the individual level, judgement without actual experience of said relation is an abstract process of decerning its probability, group agreement simply compounds this process, neither can arrive at certainty without the actual experience of the said relation. One knows the pot is hot by the touch, the state of the object relative to me its subject, the truth is directly experienced in the present tense, thus it is known to be true. So I guess I would say too, that truth is limited to the experience of the moment.Truth is that which stands the test of experience.

But, does that mean you think that truth is what is agree on, or that truth is not what is agreed on?

If truth is limited to the experience of the moment, then I don't suppose you think it is true that you were born, nor that you have parents, or even that you had breakfast yesterday. Is that right?

[perplexity]

What is to validate the moment, except for another to match?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

But, does that mean you think that truth is what is agree on, or that truth is not what is agreed on?

If truth is limited to the experience of the moment, then I don't suppose you think it is true that you were born, nor that you have parents, or even that you had breakfast yesterday. Is that right?

Hello Kennethamy,

Yes, truth is limited to the moment, can you think of a time when you found the truth of something when it was not of the moment. Truth is that which stands the test of experience and experience is of the moment. Being born, though I do not remember the experience its probablity is as high as it gets. I did not have breakfast yesterday morning, it was what you might call a none event, but I did experience not having breakfast, in my experience breakfast did not occur that day. At present I do not have any parents, I do have the memory of the experience of having parents though, as fallible as memory can be I believe I did have parents in the past, that right! Truth is what stands the test of experience, experience is of the moment.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hello Kennethamy,

Yes, truth is limited to the moment, can you think of a time when you found the truth of something when it was not of the moment. Truth is that which stands the test of experience and experience is of the moment. Being born, though I do not remember the experience its probablity is as high as it gets. I did not have breakfast yesterday morning, it was what you might call a none event, but I did experience not having breakfast, in my experience breakfast did not occur that day. At present I do not have any parents, I do have the memory of the experience of having parents though, as fallible as memory can be I believe I did have parents in the past, that right! Truth is what stands the test of experience, experience is of the moment.

Hi Boagie,

Could it not also be seen that it is only experience that is limited to the moment; and not truth? Just as viewing an object from a moving train; though ones experience of it is just in that moment, it would only be reasonble to think of the object to have existed before the experience, and to continue to exist after the experience.

Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Metaphysical science confirms that any supposed object to examine is in the final analysis an object of belief.

"Reality" exists "forever", but only until it hurts, thus usurped as if by stealth.

Whatever refuses to change is per se belief, not agreement.

Truth is thus a narrative issue, distinguished as such by pain.

Truth hurts because we cling to delusion.

Perplexity,

Would it not be better stated that any object whether examined in the final alalysis or not is a belief, for if one experiences an object that is belief,that is truth.

"Reality exists forever, but only until it hurts, thus usurped as if by stealth."

Perplexity perhaps you could explain, the above quote makes no sense to me whatsoever. I just do not get it!!

"Truth is thus a narrative issue, distinguished as such by pain."

How is truth distinguished by pain, these seem to be pieces of a syllogism which makes on sense. I am not saying you do not know of what you speak, just that I am not understanding what I assume is mean't to be understood. A narrative of pain is truth, please take some time to make yourself understood.



"Truth hurts because we cling to delusion."

This at least seems to make a little sense, if one is entertaining a delusion as truth I imagine it would hurt to find out that it is delusion. I am understanding this am I not?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Isa

Hi Boagie,

Could it not also be seen that it is only experience that is limited to the moment; and not truth? Just as viewing an object from a moving train; though ones experience of it is just in that moment, it would only be reasonble to think of the object to have existed before the experience, and to continue to exist after the experience.

Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with?

Hi Isa!

Excellent point Isa, I think truth has to be limited to the experience, experience is of the present, anything which falls out of the context of the present is just conjecture, this conjecture is in all probablity based on experience. The subject may express this experience to others as truth but it can only really be a probability for his listeners. You are right, it would only be reasonable to assume the existence of objects before experienceing them, and to assume their continued existence after the individual has experience of them. This is however not an absolute,it is not of the moment, so again it is a probablity, truth is limited to experience, experience is limited to the moment/present.

"Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with"

Ultimately we do not know, apparent reality is enabled by our senses but the which enables also limits, it is the unknown which supports the known. It is what Kant call the thing-in-itself, it manifests to us as apparent reality but we can never know its true nature, because we cannot experience it.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

What is to validate the moment, except for another to match?

Indeed, the first question though is, what does the phrase "validate the moment" mean?