Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:08:04 -0700 > " Adamson " <adamson > Proof and assumption! > > > > 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 > > > P: Whatever works for the purpose intended is " true " in that case. All other considerations of universal validity are simply opinions, and if those opinions offer comfort and a sense of security, then they work for the opinion holder, and are therefore, true for that person, until they no longer produce such feelings. Better to get to the point where comfort doesn't need neither opinions nor security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:08:04 -0700 > > " Adamson " <adamson > > Proof and assumption! > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > When electricity was first 'discovered' it appeared to behave in a most peculiar fashion. In order to describe what could be oberved about its nature......new words had to be invented. Watts.......amps.......volts all came about as adjectives and them later mysteriously turned themselves in to nouns........ Can you see what's going on here? toombaru > > P: Whatever works for the purpose intended is " true " > in that case. All other considerations of universal > validity are simply opinions, and if those opinions > offer comfort and a sense of security, then they > work for the opinion holder, and are therefore, > true for that person, until they no longer produce > such feelings. Better to get to the point where > comfort doesn't need neither opinions nor security. > 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.