Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that anything is in fact true (i.e., the way things really really really are). In so many words, it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how could one " prove " that the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " something is in itself " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " which also needs to be compared to another " standard " which is indisputable (true) but when scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another unprovable " proof " ? Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – (it appears to me) that every so-called " fact " rests upon an " assumption or presumption " which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and unexamined...I *assume*! :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* in the " relative ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to say! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that anything is in fact > true (i.e., the way things really really really are). In so many words, > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how could one " prove " that > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " something is in itself > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " which also needs to > be compared to another " standard " which is indisputable (true) but when > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another unprovable " proof " ? > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – (it appears to me) > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an " assumption or presumption " > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and unexamined...I *assume*! > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* in the " relative > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to say! > > Michael > Go deeper. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson wrote: > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that anything is in fact > true (i.e., the way things really really really are). In so many words, > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how could one " prove " that > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " something is in itself > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " which also needs to > be compared to another " standard " which is indisputable (true) but when > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another unprovable " proof " ? > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – (it appears to me) > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an " assumption or presumption " > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and unexamined...I *assume*! > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* in the " relative > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to say! > > Michael > Oh yes. Quite so. This is true of anything in mathematics and physics for example, and there is rigorous argument to back that up. It all comes down to interpretation. And yes, all is relative. Even the statement " all is relative " is relative. This is because all statements require context for their meaning (this statement included), and context is always relative. There *is no* absolute context. This is something that Buddha saw way way back. All is relative. There is no substance anywhere. Just the shifting sands of appearance. So why hang onto any particular chunk of shiftingness? No reason. Hence the beauty and liberation of " letting go " . Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Adamson " <adamson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that anything is in fact > > true (i.e., the way things really really really are). In so many words, > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how could one " prove " that > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " something is in itself > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " which also needs to > > be compared to another " standard " which is indisputable (true) but when > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another unprovable > " proof " ? > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – (it appears to me) > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an " assumption or presumption " > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and unexamined...I > *assume*! > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* in the " relative > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to say! > > > > Michael > > > > Oh yes. Quite so. > > This is true of anything in mathematics and physics for example, > and there is rigorous argument to back that up. > > It all comes down to interpretation. > > And yes, all is relative. Even the statement " all is relative " > is relative. This is because all statements require context > for their meaning (this statement included), and context is > always relative. There *is no* absolute context. > > This is something that Buddha saw way way back. > All is relative. > There is no substance anywhere. > > > So why hang onto any particular chunk of shiftingness? > No reason. > Hence the beauty and liberation of " letting go " . > > > Bill > Just the shifting sands of appearance. nice......:-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 --- Adamson <adamson a écrit : > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > anything is in fact > true (i.e., the way things really really really > are). In so many words, > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > could one " prove " that > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > something is in itself > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > which also needs to > be compared to another " standard " which is > indisputable (true) but when > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > unprovable " proof " ? > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > (it appears to me) > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > " assumption or presumption " > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > unexamined...I *assume*! > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > in the " relative > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > say! > > Michael And then, why proofs? And for whom? It is like validation, why do we need validation and proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. And I don`t beleive, period.. Patricia > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige wrote: > > --- Adamson <adamson a écrit : > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > > anything is in fact > > true (i.e., the way things really really really > > are). In so many words, > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > > could one " prove " that > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > > something is in itself > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > > which also needs to > > be compared to another " standard " which is > > indisputable (true) but when > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > > unprovable " proof " ? > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > > (it appears to me) > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > > " assumption or presumption " > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > > unexamined...I *assume*! > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > > in the " relative > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > > say! > > > > Michael > > And then, why proofs? > And for whom? > It is like validation, why do we need validation and > proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? > Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. > And I don`t beleive, period.. > > Patricia insightful... that concern with proofs and validation connects back to insecurity. and also stumbling upon something interesting... you wonder if maybe you don't believe in yourself but then say you don't believe period is not-believing-period essentially believing in yourself? it is certainly a kind of fearlessness... and maybe that is what you really mean when you speak of believing in yourself. when the surface notions of " yourself " and " believing " are stripped away, what remains is simply a fearlessness, does it not? it makes sense to me anyway. the courage to sail an uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > wrote: > > > > --- Adamson <adamson@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > > > anything is in fact > > > true (i.e., the way things really really really > > > are). In so many words, > > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > > > could one " prove " that > > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > > > something is in itself > > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > > > which also needs to > > > be compared to another " standard " which is > > > indisputable (true) but when > > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > > > unprovable " proof " ? > > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > > > (it appears to me) > > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > > > " assumption or presumption " > > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > > > unexamined...I *assume*! > > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > > > in the " relative > > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > > > say! > > > > > > Michael > > > > And then, why proofs? > > And for whom? > > It is like validation, why do we need validation and > > proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? > > Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. > > And I don`t beleive, period.. > > > > Patricia > > insightful... that concern with proofs and validation > connects back to insecurity. > > and also stumbling upon something interesting... > > you wonder if maybe you don't believe in yourself > but then say you don't believe period > > is not-believing-period essentially believing in yourself? > it is certainly a kind of fearlessness... > > and maybe that is what you really mean when you speak > of believing in yourself. when the surface notions of > " yourself " and " believing " are stripped away, what > remains is simply a fearlessness, does it not? > > it makes sense to me anyway. the courage to sail an > uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion > of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere. > > Bill this courage is same.....every evening....before sleep..... ....entering an " uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere " Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- Adamson <adamson@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > > > > anything is in fact > > > > true (i.e., the way things really really really > > > > are). In so many words, > > > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > > > > could one " prove " that > > > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > > > > something is in itself > > > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > > > > which also needs to > > > > be compared to another " standard " which is > > > > indisputable (true) but when > > > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > > > > unprovable " proof " ? > > > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > > > > (it appears to me) > > > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > > > > " assumption or presumption " > > > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > > > > unexamined...I *assume*! > > > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > > > > in the " relative > > > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > > > > say! > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > And then, why proofs? > > > And for whom? > > > It is like validation, why do we need validation and > > > proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? > > > Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. > > > And I don`t beleive, period.. > > > > > > Patricia > > > > insightful... that concern with proofs and validation > > connects back to insecurity. > > > > and also stumbling upon something interesting... > > > > you wonder if maybe you don't believe in yourself > > but then say you don't believe period > > > > is not-believing-period essentially believing in yourself? > > it is certainly a kind of fearlessness... > > > > and maybe that is what you really mean when you speak > > of believing in yourself. when the surface notions of > > " yourself " and " believing " are stripped away, what > > remains is simply a fearlessness, does it not? > > > > it makes sense to me anyway. the courage to sail an > > uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion > > of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere. > > > > Bill > > this courage is same.....every evening....before sleep..... > > ...entering an " uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the > notion of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere " > > > > Marc Ps: forgot.... best wishes for your " expeditions " ....to nowhere > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- Adamson <adamson@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > > > > anything is in fact > > > > true (i.e., the way things really really really > > > > are). In so many words, > > > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > > > > could one " prove " that > > > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > > > > something is in itself > > > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > > > > which also needs to > > > > be compared to another " standard " which is > > > > indisputable (true) but when > > > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > > > > unprovable " proof " ? > > > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > > > > (it appears to me) > > > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > > > > " assumption or presumption " > > > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > > > > unexamined...I *assume*! > > > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > > > > in the " relative > > > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > > > > say! > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > And then, why proofs? > > > And for whom? > > > It is like validation, why do we need validation and > > > proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? > > > Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. > > > And I don`t beleive, period.. > > > > > > Patricia > > > > insightful... that concern with proofs and validation > > connects back to insecurity. > > > > and also stumbling upon something interesting... > > > > you wonder if maybe you don't believe in yourself > > but then say you don't believe period > > > > is not-believing-period essentially believing in yourself? > > it is certainly a kind of fearlessness... > > > > and maybe that is what you really mean when you speak > > of believing in yourself. when the surface notions of > > " yourself " and " believing " are stripped away, what > > remains is simply a fearlessness, does it not? > > > > it makes sense to me anyway. the courage to sail an > > uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion > > of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere. > > > > Bill > > this courage is same.....every evening....before sleep..... > > ...entering an " uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the > notion of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere " > > > > Marc > a ship that is emptiness on a sea that is emptiness emptiness in emptiness and then just emptiness Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , OConnor Patricia <gdtige@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- Adamson <adamson@> a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that it's impossible to " prove " that > > > > > anything is in fact > > > > > true (i.e., the way things really really really > > > > > are). In so many words, > > > > > it's all up for grabs. Why? Simply because how > > > > > could one " prove " that > > > > > the " standard of proof " one is using to " prove " > > > > > something is in itself > > > > > " true " ? Could it be by drawing upon another " proof " > > > > > which also needs to > > > > > be compared to another " standard " which is > > > > > indisputable (true) but when > > > > > scrutinized is seen to be dependent upon yet another > > > > > unprovable " proof " ? > > > > > Somewhere along the line – and the bottom line is – > > > > > (it appears to me) > > > > > that every so-called " fact " rests upon an > > > > > " assumption or presumption " > > > > > which is usually unconscious, unquestioned, and > > > > > unexamined...I *assume*! > > > > > :-) So perhaps it's all a function of *agreement* > > > > > in the " relative > > > > > ( " ree-Laytive " ) world " , as Werner Erhard used to > > > > > say! > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > And then, why proofs? > > > > And for whom? > > > > It is like validation, why do we need validation and > > > > proofs that life is tangible the way we perceive it ? > > > > Maybe because I don`t beleive in myself. > > > > And I don`t beleive, period.. > > > > > > > > Patricia > > > > > > insightful... that concern with proofs and validation > > > connects back to insecurity. > > > > > > and also stumbling upon something interesting... > > > > > > you wonder if maybe you don't believe in yourself > > > but then say you don't believe period > > > > > > is not-believing-period essentially believing in yourself? > > > it is certainly a kind of fearlessness... > > > > > > and maybe that is what you really mean when you speak > > > of believing in yourself. when the surface notions of > > > " yourself " and " believing " are stripped away, what > > > remains is simply a fearlessness, does it not? > > > > > > it makes sense to me anyway. the courage to sail an > > > uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the notion > > > of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere. > > > > > > Bill > > > > this courage is same.....every evening....before sleep..... > > > > ...entering an " uncharted sea, destination unknown, and even the > > notion of " oneself " empty, pointing nowhere " > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > a ship that is emptiness > on a sea that is emptiness > > emptiness in emptiness > > and then > > just emptiness > > Bill so emptyness should have courage to enter in....emptyness?.... Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.