Resolving Ultimate and Conventional Truth

[Wibble]

Therefore, we have no real objective criteria, to know if our senses are functioning well, or our interpretation and processing of those signals is correct. That being the case, there is always a gap between what you perceive and what is really there. What is there beyond your thinking about it is the ultimate reality.

Yes, of course, our perception is very subjective and there is always a gap, but "ultimate reality" is just an idea, an abstraction and I would say not a very useful one because we will never get to the limits of what it might be. I am saying there is no "ultimate reality", just a set of ideas we have about what lies behind or beyond our subjective perceptions, based on the latest scientific discovery or whatever. A space alien with different sense organs would have a completely different set of ideas about "ultimate reality", which underlines the point I am making. The word "reality" is a can of worms philosophically, and adding "ultimate" just compounds the difficulties.

I think it is more productive to just talk about the "universe", and acknowledge we really know very little about it, and will never completely understand it.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Both philosophically and scientifically we know the eyes don't see and the ears don't hear. The senses transmit signals to the brain and we process that information through many filters to create knowledge of what is going on outside our skin, so to speak.

This statement has always given me difficulties. It seems to be playing with words. Of course we 'see' with our eyes, 'hear' with our ears. These organs are built into our bodies to allow our perception of some of the layers of the world around us. They are very limiting as far as what we can see & hear versus all there is to see & hear; they do, never the less, see and hear!

Therefore, we have no real objective criteria, to know if our senses are functioning well, or our interpretation and processing of those signals is correct.

Again, to say we have no objective criteria seems to be going too far. We do have enough objective criteria so that we can all see a chair and are able to agree that it is a chair. A human smile will be interpreted for what it is anywhere in the world, no matter the culture. It's not that we are all seeing the exact same thing; we are not, as you stated. We are all able to see enough similarity to agree on what we are looking at.

There is a basic set of criteria known to most all of us. There has to be. Otherwise we could not function in the world with others.

That being the case, there is always a gap between what you perceive and what is really there.

Now this is a statement I can get behind! Beyond the 'basic database' we all carry there are depths of variation that are open to individual interpretation for every one of us. One fun example is a color test many of you may have seen. There is a bar of red in different shades of that color shown on a screen, how many shades can one see. Most women will see more shades than men. Woman have through the millennia, developed a better sense of variation in colors. And even within the individual sexes there will be some who will discern better, some less so.

What is there beyond your thinking about it is the ultimate reality.

I'm just not sure there is this concept of ultimate. Ultimate implies to me that there is one perfect "x" that is out there somewhere. Is there? Because we all perceive a variation of "x" that leads me to believe the closest we can come is actually the lowest common denominator rather than the perfection.

My focus has been on physical objects rather than something way more ephemeral as 'truth'. Hopefully to help make it clear where I am coming from. When we move into such concepts of morality and such, I wonder if there isn't that same 'basic database' of thinking where we can all agree on the generality of the principal. And then there is the variation principle within us all that breaks the principal down into layers of subtlety.

Spiritually and theologically, of course, most would probably suggest that there is those 'perfections' that would be considered the Ultimate. My difficulty with these concepts is that, like the gods themselves, these perfections are beyond mortal comprehension. Specifically these Ultimates are no more perceptible to us than the minds of gods themselves. As such, to me, they are in the same realm of reality, or not. They are an ideal that can not ever be achieved on this mortal plane.

 

[Nasruddin]

This statement has always given me difficulties. It seems to be playing with words. Of course we 'see' with our eyes, 'hear' with our ears. These organs are built into our bodies to allow our perception of some of the layers of the world around us. They are very limiting as far as what we can see & hear versus all there is to see & hear; they do, never the less, see and hear!



Again, to say we have no objective criteria seems to be going too far. We do have enough objective criteria so that we can all see a chair and are able to agree that it is a chair. A human smile will be interpreted for what it is anywhere in the world, no matter the culture. It's not that we are all seeing the exact same thing; we are not, as you stated. We are all able to see enough similarity to agree on what we are looking at.

There is a basic set of criteria known to most all of us. There has to be. Otherwise we could not function in the world with others.



Now this is a statement I can get behind! Beyond the 'basic database' we all carry there are depths of variation that are open to individual interpretation for every one of us. One fun example is a color test many of you may have seen. There is a bar of red in different shades of that color shown on a screen, how many shades can one see. Most women will see more shades than men. Woman have through the millennia, developed a better sense of variation in colors. And even within the individual sexes there will be some who will discern better, some less so.



I'm just not sure there is this concept of ultimate. Ultimate implies to me that there is one perfect "x" that is out there somewhere. Is there? Because we all perceive a variation of "x" that leads me to believe the closest we can come is actually the lowest common denominator rather than the perfection.

My focus has been on physical objects rather than something way more ephemeral as 'truth'. Hopefully to help make it clear where I am coming from. When we move into such concepts of morality and such, I wonder if there isn't that same 'basic database' of thinking where we can all agree on the generality of the principal. And then there is the variation principle within us all that breaks the principal down into layers of subtlety.

Spiritually and theologically, of course, most would probably suggest that there is those 'perfections' that would be considered the Ultimate. My difficulty with these concepts is that, like the gods themselves, these perfections are beyond mortal comprehension. Specifically these Ultimates are no more perceptible to us than the minds of gods themselves. As such, to me, they are in the same realm of reality, or not. They are an ideal that can not ever be achieved on this mortal plane.

What I find most amusing is that while there have been posts that wish to deconstruct my OP, not one has addressed it directly. Ok, I can play in that ballpark as well.
When I say the ears and eyes do not see, I mean that most people think of eyes and ears as holes in the head through which pass images and sounds of the outside world. Biologically speaking that doesn't really happen. By making statements such as I did, I invite people to see things differently than they usually do. My experience here on the forum is that rarely happens.
Since my degree is in social psychology, I like to see how people respond to different ideas. There is an entire science around how our language dictates our thinking, called psychoneurolinguistics. Most people are unaware of this and think that their mode of thinking is absolute; there is no other way to make sense of things other than discursive thought.



For example, I've mentioned several times that I don't conceive of "ultimate truth" as something beyond what we experience including rocks, trees, cars, people, mountains and clouds, yet the response has been that I must have meant something more esoteric. My thought is that people may be very reactive when it comes to existential issues. All it means is that if you and I see an elephant differently, the elephant exists regardless of what you or I believe or feel is true. In this sense the elephant of itself, is the ultimate truth because it exists independently of our thoughts about it. Do you see?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Much to ponder here. I shall be pondering for a bit.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

All it means is that if you and I see an elephant differently, the elephant exists regardless of what you or I believe or feel is true. In this sense the elephant of itself, is the ultimate truth because it exists independently of our thoughts about it. Do you see?

I see your point, but is not the elephant defined as an elephant by the thought and belief that it is an elephant?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I see your point, but is not the elephant defined as an elephant by the thought and belief that it is an elephant?

I can think of three perspectives that would answer the question differently and none really exclude the others. Physically, socially and psychologically. I find that the world is a lot messier than a singe answer to a single question.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I can think of three perspectives that would answer the question differently and none really exclude the others.

True that. Probably more.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I can think of three perspectives that would answer the question differently

And they are all merely that. Perceptions. Perception doesn't change reality. It changes how we each individually look at reality.

 

[Nasruddin]

I see your point, but is not the elephant defined as an elephant by the thought and belief that it is an elephant?

Now you're getting it!
The Tao that can be talked about isn't the Tao. Like the concept of God or anything else. As soon as it is named it is lost. And that which we cannot name is the ultimate truth.
The Buddha taught that all is one, that is nirvana, but if the slightest distinction is made, one is back in samsara.

We begin to see here that all our attempts to label, and thus control, actually work against us. The sages and saints, as I've said in the OP, see that the world is beautiful and perfect as it is, yet those of us who live in the day to day world see it as a journey, a problem to be solves or at least something that must be endured. We argue about it like the blind men and the elephant never realizing that the very nature of our discursive polarized thought keeps us from the bliss we seek. That is the absurdity of human existence.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

And they are all merely that. Perceptions. Perception doesn't change reality. It changes how we each individually look at reality.

I don't think so, they describe different mechanisms.

Physically the elephant has a mass for example, and we can observe it optically.

Socially we have a way to communicate about elephants, we might talk about them as Indian or African, they are dangerous but also social and intelligent, they are useful as domesticated animals and key in their environments. I know qualitative date is less meaningful to you DA but for many of us it is as useful as any quantitative data.

Psychologically an elephant is defined in individuals by their experiences associated with elephants, and to the elephant the they are defined in many ways by how they are treated by the world around it, be it humans or a natural environment. They are also psychologically defined by their biological nature.

The elephant is defined differently in different contexts that have direct and indirect impact in what is happening in reality, whatever you may call that reality and how many there are.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I don't think so, they describe different mechanisms.

Physically the elephant has a mass for example, and we can observe it optically.

Socially we have a way to communicate about elephants, we might talk about them as Indian or African, they are dangerous but also social and intelligent, they are useful as domesticated animals and key in their environments. I know qualitative date is less meaningful to you DA but for many of us it is as useful as any quantitative data.

Psychologically an elephant is defined in individuals by their experiences associated with elephants, and to the elephant the they are defined in many ways by how they are treated by the world around it, be it humans or a natural environment. They are also psychologically defined by their biological nature.

The elephant is defined differently in different contexts that have direct and indirect impact in what is happening in reality, whatever you may call that reality and how many there are.

I bet Ganesh would love this conversation.....

 

[Nasruddin]

I bet Ganesh would love this conversation.....

I think so too. His laughter would ring out like a bell! Like thunder and wind, blowing away even our very thoughts until all that is left is just...that.
Next, the awareness comes that we are that.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

The elephant is defined differently in different contexts that have direct and indirect impact in what is happening in reality, whatever you may call that reality and how many there are.

We are seeing this from different perspectives. How the elephant is defined by varied perceptions are irrelevant to the elephant. The elephant is.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I've mentioned several times that I don't conceive of "ultimate truth" as something beyond what we experience including rocks, trees, cars, people, mountains and clouds, yet the response has been that I must have meant something more esoteric.

We are in agreement here. Ultimate truth is not some ephemeral thing beyond what is. For me this leads to a place where 'ultimate' truths are mere fabrications that we mortals make up to attempt to give more meaning that is not actually necessary.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

All it means is that if you and I see an elephant differently, the elephant exists regardless of what you or I believe or feel is true. In this sense the elephant of itself, is the ultimate truth because it exists independently of our thoughts about it. Do you see?

Do I see? Maybe. No matter our perspectives, the elephant exists independently of our thoughts, desires or wishes. Where I'm not sure I agree is that it makes for some ultimate truth. It is simply truth. There is no need to give it some special perceived status such as ultimate.

 

[Nasruddin]

I don't think so, they describe different mechanisms.

Physically the elephant has a mass for example, and we can observe it optically.

Socially we have a way to communicate about elephants, we might talk about them as Indian or African, they are dangerous but also social and intelligent, they are useful as domesticated animals and key in their environments. I know qualitative date is less meaningful to you DA but for many of us it is as useful as any quantitative data.

Psychologically an elephant is defined in individuals by their experiences associated with elephants, and to the elephant the they are defined in many ways by how they are treated by the world around it, be it humans or a natural environment. They are also psychologically defined by their biological nature.

The elephant is defined differently in different contexts that have direct and indirect impact in what is happening in reality, whatever you may call that reality and how many there are.

My poor little ACOT. You really are trying way too hard here. Kind of like trying to sleep, or trying to love someone. It is the trying that is getting you all tangled up, like asking the little centipede how she keeps track of which leg should come next. She lays in the ditch unable to move trying to figure it all out.

 

[Nasruddin]

Do I see? Maybe. No matter our perspectives, the elephant exists independently of our thoughts, desires or wishes. Where I'm not sure I agree is that it makes for some ultimate truth. It is simply truth. There is no need to give it some special perceived status such as ultimate.

I think you're getting hung up on the words. They don't mean anything of themselves, they point to something. Forget them if it makes it easier. Word "ultimate" can also mean what is left over after everything else is subtracted. Like saying that is what it all seems to boil down to. Only language, only thinking makes it confusing. Seriously, our language affects our thoughts which informs our language which affects our feelings, which leads to thinking about our feelings, and isn't that an interesting thought? Exhausting huh?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

We are seeing this from different perspectives. How the elephant is defined by varied perceptions are irrelevant to the elephant. The elephant is.

Nothing 'only is', there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, there is always interactions a thing and other things, including an observer. In my opinion. But you have a positivists background, it is natural for us to disagree.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

My poor little ACOT. You really are trying way too hard here. Kind of like trying to sleep, or trying to love someone. It is the trying that is getting you all tangled up, like asking the little centipede how she keeps track of which leg should come next. She lays in the ditch unable to move trying to figure it all out.

That sounds like a very arrogant statement? I would agree if this 'centipede' was trying to move the same legs you are, but it's very obvious we are not, no?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

But you have a positivists background, it is natural for us to disagree.

And we do, regularly, in a most polite fashion if I do say so myself!

The elephant is defined differently in different contexts that have direct and indirect impact in what is happening in reality, whatever you may call that reality and how many there are.

Would you expand on this thought further? I agree that an object can be defined differently in different contexts. Where I lose you is why you believe that would alter the reality of the elephant.