Nothing is true ,everything is permitted

Originally posted by black beetle
No, not YinYang; the charm you refer to, my obnoxious brother, is Gankyil😵

That is beautiful. I particularly enjoy the English translation provided by Wikipedia: "bliss-whirling" or "wheel of joy".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ha ha.

The last disagreement I recall was when I was trying to fit 'deconstruction' in a box marked 'aum'.

Oh my! I do remember that! But I did not then realize the “koanic” possibilities of deconstruction. 🙂 Good night, old friend.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hmmm. I missed his yin/yang edit.

But yin/yang is just the first formal (in the Aristotelian sense) expression of apparent dualism within the totality. Underneath that is just the—here comes my long-winded attempt at not using any standard terms from any extant system!—the inexpressible implicate expressive ground.

The Gankyil, to my mind, can expres ...[text shortened]... it). So thanks for that.

This participant is tired and must go to bed. See ya’all tomorrow!

Gankyil is the procedure whilst getting to know what exists and from there to getting to know what exists not; it is Musashi's Void😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That is beautiful. I particularly enjoy the English translation provided by Wikipedia: "bliss-whirling" or "wheel of joy".

Dzogchen😵

Originally posted by black beetle
On the other hand ToO, every conception of ours regarding any observer is related to our ability to trace all the information he has labeled as "past", which is a reprocessing of the information available in the present (here and now). But, since we are not able to retrieve all the elements of reality that they belong to the past, all the unknown elemen ...[text shortened]... , then our "truth" cannot be "absolute" -and therefore "truth" is "empty" 😵

...every conception of ours regarding any observer is related to our ability to trace all the information he has labeled as "past", which is a reprocessing of the information available in the present (here and now). But, since we are not able to retrieve all the elements of reality that they belong to the past, all the unknown elements of the past are indefinite. And this means that, since there is no such a thing as a "solely one past", there is solely a set of equivalent pasts which they are compatible with the current elements of reality.

This is nonsense. There is one past with differing observer's conceptions of that past.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]...every conception of ours regarding any observer is related to our ability to trace all the information he has labeled as "past", which is a reprocessing of the information available in the present (here and now). But, since we are not able to retrieve all the elements of reality that they belong to the past, all the unknown elements of the past are ...[text shortened]...

This is nonsense. There is one past with differing observer's conceptions of that past.

Of course you are wrong. Check amongst else:
Lloyd's "Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation", Nature, Vol. 406, No 6799, 1047-1054 (2000)
Walborn et al "Double-slit quantum eraser, Phys. Rev. A65, 033818 (2002)
Jacques et al. "Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choise GedankenExperiment", Science Vol. 315 No 5814, 966-968 (2007)
😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Without some authority to refer to or defer to, how can you determine that your view of what-there-is is correct? (The yin-yang symbol is a charm that can neutralise this sort of question).

As it happens, I'm quite happy to admit that 'reality' is 'everything-at-once'. Why speak of an 'ultimate' reality, though? If reality is simply what-there-is, w ...[text shortened]... available to our senses.

Moses got a good answer from out of the fiery shrub.

Why speak of an 'ultimate' reality, though? If reality is simply what-there-is, why not leave it at that?

I'm not sure that I spoke of "ultimate reality". If I did it was likely similar to where I spoke of "ultimate truth" which was an attempt to explain that "Truth is reality" as follows.

I said the following:
"'Truth' is not relative. 'Truth' is absolute. It is only the opinions as to what is "Truth" that are relative."

You asked the following in response:
"What does 'Truth is absolute' mean?"

I responded with the following:
"Just that it isn't relative like many seem to believe. There exists an ultimate truth that is reality."

Using the word "ultimate" was just to distinguish it from a "relative truth". I'd be more than happy to refer to "truth" and "reality" with the understanding that they are "simply what-there-is". But then you get people who say things like, "Nothing is true ,everything is permitted", "It showed me the relativity of 'truth' at the time.And since.", etc., which seems to indicate "truth" and "reality" are what-is-perceived.

Originally posted by black beetle
When I told you that "you are accurate" my intention was to show you that I accept that your keyboard is real, your house and your car are real etc. But they are not real in a status separated from everything else, they do not stand as independent objective “truth/ reality” by means of intrinsic, independent existence. All things and events occuring wit ...[text shortened]... on -in other words, there is nothing that has inherent existence, “truth” included😵

Well, you seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that you still haven't properly addressed the scenario or the questions that I asked.

That was the point of the post to which your post was in response to. Do you choose to speak in only abstract terms because your conceptual model does not work well when faced with something more concrete?

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course you are wrong. Check amongst else:
Lloyd's "Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation", Nature, Vol. 406, No 6799, 1047-1054 (2000)
Walborn et al "Double-slit quantum eraser, Phys. Rev. A65, 033818 (2002)
Jacques et al. "Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choise GedankenExperiment", Science Vol. 315 No 5814, 966-968 (2007)
😵

Somehow this is eerily reminiscent of Christians pointing to their dogma as "proof".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, you seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that you still haven't properly addressed the scenario or the questions that I asked.

That was the point of the post to which your post was in response to. Do you choose to speak in only abstract terms because your conceptual model does not work well when faced with something more concrete?

What are the "abstract" terms? I was quitre specific and I refuted in full your scenario. Whatever you in person are aware of is a a product of your body/ speech/ mind mechanism within a given environment. Reality is reality, but you keep up repeating that "reality is truth" and that therefore there is absolute truth as is. I explained to you that this is false according to a whole philosophical system and I backed up my opinion in detail with scientific facts and evidence too -but in vain😵

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Somehow this is eerily reminiscent of Christians pointing to their dogma as "proof".

No it is not! I offered specific scientific facts and evidence regarding a specific theory, which they are well known to the scientific community and which they are exposed to severe critisicm, falsification and evaluation. Why do you evaluate this work similar to the miscellaneous theological approaches?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
What are the "abstract" terms? I was quitre specific and I refuted in full your scenario. Whatever you in person are aware of is a a product of your body/ speech/ mind mechanism within a given environment. Reality is reality, but you keep up repeating that "reality is truth" and that therefore there is absolute truth as is. I explained to you that this ...[text shortened]... m and I backed up my opinion in detail with scientific facts and evidence too -but in vain😵

What you said wasn't specific to the scenario. It was specific to your conceptual model.

Like I said earlier:
I was hoping to get a better understanding of your conceptual model by giving a simple scenario: "Let's say we have two observers in an environment." I tried to explain how the scenario fit in my conceptual model and asked that you do the same. I defined "reality" in relationship to the "environment", "truth" in relationship to that
"reality", the "observer's" relationship with the "environment", etc., and was hoping to get something similar in return.... You spoke not of "environment", "reality" in relationship to the "environment", "truth" in relationship to the environment, "observer" in relationship to the environment, etc. In short, you completely abandoned the scenario. I also asked several questions that you seem to have completely ignored.

Evidently what we have here is a failure to communicate 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What you said wasn't specific to the scenario. It was specific to your conceptual model.

Like I said earlier:
[b]I was hoping to get a better understanding of your conceptual model by giving a simple scenario: "Let's say we have two observers in an environment." I tried to explain how the scenario fit in my conceptual model and asked that you do the s ...[text shortened]... ed.

Evidently what we have here is a failure to communicate 🙂[/b]

Well I though that these two observers are you and a dog; you and me; a rock and a bird; a snake and a cloud, and so on. Does their body/ mind mechanism brings up the same products regarding the elements of reality that each observer grasps?

Furthermore, I took the case of the observers being you and me, and I was wondering why you were thinking that our interpretation of a given reality is translated/ interprated the same way for both of us? The way I perceive a given reality is different than yours although, I repeat, we of course agree that a car is car, a cloud is a cloud etc.

And then I went on by means of backing up my point regarding the "emptiness" of the absolute truth" as you posed it at your scenario. And I responded to it in detail in order to bring up the refutation of your idea about a standing alone truth as is😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Well I though that these two observers are you and a dog; you and me; a rock and a bird; a snake and a cloud, and so on. Does their body/ mind mechanism brings up the same products regarding the elements of reality that each observer grasps?

Furthermore, I took the case of the observers being you and me, and I was wondering why you were thinking that ...[text shortened]... detail in order to bring up the refutation of your idea about a standing alone truth as is😵

Well, this is going nowhere. I suspect it's at least partly a language thing.

So let's try the questions I asked earlier:

One thing that I'm having difficulty is the following: Is there even such a thing as a "shared" environment? Or can this scenario only be seen from a single observer's viewpoint with the other "observer" merely being an object?

Also you spoke of evaluating "our personal Knowledge/ Ignorance process". If "truth" is relative to a single observer, of what is there to be knowledge of? It seems that everything in a single observer's reality would be true.

Please don't try giving a more detailed description of your conceptual model. If I understood what you were saying, I wouldn't have to ask questions.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, this is going nowhere. I suspect it's at least partly a language thing.

So let's try the questions I asked earlier:

One thing that I'm having difficulty is the following: Is there even such a thing as a "shared" environment? Or can this scenario only be seen from a single observer's viewpoint with the other "observer" merely being an object?
...[text shortened]... al model. If I understood what you were saying, I wouldn't have to ask questions.

There is a "shared" environment for the sentient beings, the Human included -our kosmos as we percieve it by means of our body/ speech/ mind mechanism. Each observer is a sub-system within our kosmos, and we are observers too.

Our Knowledge is the process of a never ending evaluation of our products of the World 1, 2 and 3 based on given elements of reality as we perceive them, in order to become able to handle even better the packets of information available to us through the miscellaneous observers that we observe😵