Nostr Web Client

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, including how claims of truth are relative to a framework and the truths they describe may even be subjective, and that the appropriate epistemology may even be subjective.

I think that you are, however, confusing a consensus on the subjective claims of truth, or on the means of claiming truth, with objective truth, when you say

> So, if all religious understanding (whether about god or gods, Confucianism or Taoism) is only *relatively* true, then they might as well be false. We’re looking for something that True, always and everywhere.

Something that is true everywhere and always is still perfectly achievable in a subjective framework, if your framework applies soundly to the whole universe. The fact that there is not consensus on this is not reliably indicative of it being false anywhere, ever. This applies whether they outright deny your framework and understanding or they merely do not understand it or don't know of it at all. The framework can still be concordant with reality under any of these conditions.

For two ostensibly contradictory interpretations of reality to both be the truth, it is often a difference in frameworks between minds that makes it appear that way, when in reality there is no such contradiction, and so a consensus on truth can exist properly understood, while appearing to have very different and incompatible claims if you interpret them through a framework in which the claims lose their meaning. I think that is one of the things that people do when they confuse consensus with truth, or get stuck on the words or definitions of concepts and forget the relativeness of the meaning, which it looks like you are trying to not do, but are still doing.

j'ai les clés 10mo ago

I dunno. I don’t really see the difference, even though you’re trying really hard to show it to me. LOL.

I don’t agree that, “Something that is true everywhere and always is still perfectly achievable in a subjective framework, if your framework applies soundly to the whole universe.” It’s precisely the subjectivity that I’m pointing at which makes it relative. Anything relative is not True always-and-everywhere. It is only true in relation to certain conditions or a specific framework. It’s one sided, from one perspective.

I do understand what you are saying, and read it several times. It’s just that maybe we have differing views on what TRUTH means. Not to devolve our discussion too much, but Truth does not depend on consensus (we agree on this), nor does it depend on a framework (we disagree on this).

When you refer to the “relativeness of the meaning,” it sounds like you are scoring a point for me, actually.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

I think I miscommunicated when I said subjective framework. What I meant by that was the individual's framework for understanding objective reality.

j'ai les clés 10mo ago

Okay, but still. If a given “individual’s framework for understanding objective reality” is different than another’s, then we are still back to my point that one individual’s (e.g. and Hindu’s or Ancient Greek’s) framework differs materially from another’s. Hence, not True always-and-everywhere. My main point is that what you call objective reality is only understood and communicated through concepts and that it is only when these concepts are DROPPED that we get to anything real and True. This is what #mediation points to, at least. All frameworks are just stories, ideas, thoughts… opinions.

j'ai les clés 10mo ago

Again, I don’t mean to offend. You are free to pray however you like. But, a survey of religions and myths over the millennia demonstrate that the only thing more abundant than our creativity about divinity is our certainty that *our* interpretation is more right than the next tribe’s. In the end, any god you worship is just another story. Your god may be a merciful one or a wrathful one. It may be personified by a man, a woman, or a monkey. It may contain lessons, dogmas, or rituals that are more (or less) beneficial to human flourishing. But, it’s just a story. The Truth is none of it correct, none of it is important, and none of it matters. This is not nihilism. It’s just the truth. Objectively.

You mentioned that you are interested in Taoism. So, let’s look at the Wu Wei, for example.

“Why are you unhappy?

Because 99% of everything you think, and everything you do, is for your self….

…and there isn’t one.”

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

Then you disagree with me on what meaning is and how frameworks should be interpreted on a meta level. Meditation does give you direct access to truth, but as soon as names and statements are introduced, as soon as a framework is prescribed, this framework, according to you, is a phony approximation, whereas according to me it is either that or can be understood as really true within the bounds within which the framework applies, is true, and has its meaning.

Meaning itself is dependent on context, truth is a distinct concept from meaning. No one mind understands everything, which is what your suggestion about frameworks seems to imply you are seeking, a mind that understands everything. I alternatively treat meaning for how it best operates in the world within my limitations as a mind within it. However your suggestion of meditation invites every mind to discover raw truth without being beholden to frameworks that might be wrong, as individuals, which is a much nicer solution than the idea of discovering a set of truth claims that are true and have meaning to all different people.