Lost for words

Truth. That five letter word we all know and use, but can we define it? I contend we cannot accurately define "truth." Truth does exist, it just cannot be defined accurately. If you disagree, please, let's have a discussion about it. If you think truth can be accurately defined, define it.

a reply to: Aristotelian1

If truth can't be defined, is that not a truth in and of itself?

Makes me think the assertion is therefore incorrect.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Truth. That five letter word we all know and use, but can we define it? I contend we cannot accurately define "truth." Truth does exist, it just cannot be defined accurately. If you disagree, please, let's have a discussion about it. If you think truth can be accurately defined, define it.

Tend to agree.
No "Truth", with a capital T.

Just an occasional, small, relative truth, that is fleeting, and so easy to slip away.

There is a good 2 part interview with Willis Barnstone. Might help with a part of this predicament you stated.
first 5 minutes in to
part 1 www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Aristotelian1

Seriously, to me Truth is IN you. Like a.... Sixth Sense. Something telling you that feeling of dread or peace. Not to cross the road because you feel dread coming, in the form of a Mac Truck. Or Peace that everythings cool, nothing to worry about.

Truth is in that, It is for me anyways.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Truth. That five letter word we all know and use, but can we define it? I contend we cannot accurately define "truth." Truth does exist, it just cannot be defined accurately. If you disagree, please, let's have a discussion about it. If you think truth can be accurately defined, define it.

If what you say is True, then it's a Lie.

So you can see the problem.

Truth is a personal thing. What we believe translates into what truth is for us. The quality of content that we obtain winds up constructing the state of our belief, and when we translate it to others, it is truth, as we believe it to be.

It certainly does not mean correct, which is a totally different word all together.

a reply to: Aristotelian1 I think there is a big difference between thinking truth can be accurately defined and doing so. Just because I can't, or you can't or Buckeroo Banzai can't, well maybe he can, doesn't mean that it can't be. I guess it depends a lot on how one defines accurately. Like down to .0000000001 or what? I would say that one accurate thought about truth is, if it is, it may or may not be singular. If singular then maybe it would be more difficult then if we think it might be plural. If we think of it as plural, then maybe it might be easier to get an accurate definition of it if one combines the inaccurate definitions of it's plurality and evaluates them in juxtaposition to each other.

Truth for me, might not be the same Truth's, that you possess. Like they same different strokes for different folks.

Truths and Laws are similar, but then again in this Universe, the say Laws of Physics, dictate the way things occur in this Universe.
If you were to go outside of this Universe, Creation, the Laws and Truth's, could be completely different than what we, see, embrace.

At the God Head, Brahma, Kether, it is said there is no up, down ,right, left, good, Bad, male female, in, out,big, small.

I would concede though, in this place there are some Undeniable Truth's. So we are bound, by this, like it or not, till the end of this space time. So it seems.

Enjoy the ride.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Truth. That five letter word we all know and use, but can we define it? I contend we cannot accurately define "truth." Truth does exist, it just cannot be defined accurately. If you disagree, please, let's have a discussion about it. If you think truth can be accurately defined, define it.

That 'accurately defined' of which you speak, implies 'down to the smallest detail', which is a product of the 'duality'; this, not that, that not this, tall not short, etc..., and on ad-infinitum...
'Definitions' are all duality, ego, 'exclusive'.
Truth is ALL INCLUSIVE!
Truth/Reality transcends the mere duality of 'thought/ego'.
That is why there can be no such 'definition' of unconditional Love, because ego/duality is all conditional!
That is why Consciousness cannot be defined, it, too is unconditional, One!

For the 'unconditional', the 'definition' (conditions) becomes some word or phrase that indicates 'all inclusive'.
God/Universe is One, means ALL inclusive!
Truth is all inclusive; One!
Thus, whatever you can ever possibly perceive, from goldfish to dreams, are features of Truth!
Thus to put definitional limitations on Truth is insanity.
'This is true' does not preclude 'that' being, simultaneously, true.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

From my point of view:

Truth=Objective measurement of all information on all levels of creation and time including all states that happened/will happen that will include all subjective view on the measurement. Total knowledge of ONE spanning everything.

Even of you cannot become fully objective you can still strive towards removing subjectivity by seeing different angles on the duality scales and check how they measure up by measuring. 6 sense/synchronicity can be used to increase objectivity and transfer the subjective to a less subjective state.

All subjective views can be wrong and not measure up to objective measurement on all levels of creation.

On several occasions I have become despondent upon thoughts of my demise and nonexistence, kind of a dismal thing, but then what the hell, does it even matter, why should I care.

But then I thought, when your in the thick of it and all is shining bright, the Truth is there, jump in both feet first, be that Truth, what ever it is for that instant. It would be aligning yourself with what ever the Truth maybe for that instant. What a noble way to go thru existence, as long as you could glean what ever the Truth really was for that second, Being one with the Universe as such, as the Truth is written all thru this place.

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
Truth. That five letter word we all know and use, but can we define it?

Truth is here now - if you remove all words, all concepts - this just is what it is.
What is, IS.
But what this is, is unspeakable, unimaginable and undeniable.

1+1=2

Contact exists... however what sort of contact that occurs? Is realitvity itself... to the consent of such contact.

I am not sure if anyone is familiar with the "Master of The House" Concept. Where you name everything different in your visual experience something else. Than what it actually is in the ormal conceptual routine or naming convention.

Of course this can become a mental trap for those that enter such a web like a matrix... that once in they canot escape if you go behind them and name it something different.

Horrid to be trapped in such a bubble, but obviously entering the void is the only way out... of course making the void a not stop experience of being means there is also no becoming.

In visual existence of the "4 walls" nothing exists outside of the persistece of that visual memory or snapshot and one well travels into any visual time frame or point in existence once such webs are utangled and one is unattached to those hanging them up in such manners of being.

Of course people saying things trying to interfere with your perception as little web slingers making the very fabric of space and time or distance of that being. Everyone is at the center of their own universe or place in time and space of distiace down to the so called planck distance, however planck will claim to own such a distance having his poop of a name all over it. lol

So the silly thing is the processio of all concept sliding by in the casual nexus... of course being creatures of habitual "snap shots" then those energies of forms return to what they recall as a reality in of course without some consentual agreement to that contact of being in a place and time then the time is always shifting and irrevelvant in the existence of a self.

Or being as a spectrum of particles. This sort of thing was personified at some point and given names and forms simply in order to control and form a solid reality as a unity but it is not actual reality of being without consent to that as an existence of contact in the sense spheres of contact that are held as those snapshots in the mental area kown as mind...

Of course many like to identify themselves with the biggies" like devil or god or blah blah blah igorant forms of being just to hammer some image o your wall of being for some smattering or image so that they can appear in your reality or time.

It's an interesting journey and my appologies if rote does not cut the mustard.

a reply to: Rex282

Fallacy

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Contact exists... however what sort of contact that occurs?

'Contact' assumes more than one.
What is in contact with what?

There is only ever what is and 'what is' is not two.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

If you dont name it and it just is then it is simply contact... awareness is awareness and then it hits a wall and some attachment grabs it and chains it as some form because there are 5 different senses of attachment and mind sorts them otherwise it is simply contact.

One can be no different than the zero or all in which there is in and of itself in total without difference... that the mind tries to calculate or attach too.

So 1+1? That equals can be anything... as the one and one never really separate from the zero except on contact of naming the form or sense in which that "contact" takes place otherwise it is simply undefined, all of it is undefined unless the contact starts adding it up or putting it to some sort of use.

All of it is variable and undefined and yet it is!