jehocifer wrote:"I know that I know nothing".

... is erroneous.
Perhaps; "I know one thing, and that is that I only know one thing."
But then the original purpose is defeated in that you 'think' that you 'know' something after all.
Nah, worded poorly and probably oxymoronic.
Like most 'bumperstickers', it fails under critical scrutiny. Sounds all wise and stuff, if left unexamined, though, and that is enough for most...

jehocifer wrote:Yes, so now I have everything to learn. I challenge nameless to give me an undeniable truth that is not based on a single assumption. Let us see how well you examined my statement. Are you up for it, nameless?

Are you asking me to mirror your thoughts as expressed in your 'statement', or do you wish for my own?
Anyway, you ask me a 'trick' question.

Second, you asked for;
"an undeniable truth".
Anything that I might offer is automatically refuted by the simple act of your saying "I deny/object to/refuse/disagree with... that 'truth'!" It has now been 'denied'. So, under your strictures/parameters, you are making your request impossible to answer, rather like that fraud, James Randi, and 'his' 'challenge'. I am, of course, not implying that you are fraudulent, just your 'challenge' (if seen that way...).

Second, you further require;
"that is not based on a single assumption".
So, according to your second 'impossible' stricture, you ask for a pile of words from me to appear on your monitor, and for it to have some 'meaning' to you. Not only 'some meaning', but to be some sort of 'universal truth' that both spans all possible Perspectives and all possible universes at every moment of existence. All this using words that in themselves have 'assumed' meanings, 'assumed' context. To communicate using verbal language has no option but to be based on many 'assumptions'. All that before we can even get into what the 'words' might be (assumed to be) saying.
Even the sentence;
"rewi tuy=09 4 385tuig fhv 43 w657y t8a 8rw09e" is tied to many 'assumptions'.

So, for these reasons, and more, I must respectfully must decline your challenge.
I will offer, however;
"In Silentium, Verum!" (In Silence, Truth!") - Book of Fudd (1:2)

The question of a universal truth rests in someone offering something that is undeniable, obviously. You must have knowledge that is completely free of assumption...completely free... Maybe it is possible to find such a thing.

Second, I hope that you didn't interpret (assume) that since I questioned the logical validity of your statement, "I know that I know nothing", that I was questioning your post in other areas. I'm feeling that you might be preaching top the choir.
My problem is the use of the egoic term 'knowledge'. I define 'knowledge' as the sum total, at any particular moment, of the contents of your memory elevated to a level (egoic identification) of 'truth', and most elevate their itty bitty momentary memories to the level of 'universal truth'. "I KNOW it!" Means that one considers it 'truth' and vainly revels in being the 'possessor' of that 'truth'.
I do not use the 'vain' term 'knowledge' myself. I find more .. 'meaningful' terms.

... But, unless one of you gentlemen can offer up a theory without assumption,...

Yup, it appears that as I questioned your single statement, that you ASSUMED that I questioned anything else. I guess that you can see, by now, that we just might be on the same page here.
Peace

jehocifer wrote:Ah, nameless. By "undeniable truth" I simply meant a statement that was free of assumption.

And I have explained how that would be impossible.

Such a statement would have no conceivable holes in its reasoning, and thus would be undeniable. It would leave the doubters without an argument...well, other than "I disagree"...But I'm not into that type of answer, you see. I'm more of a "I disagree, and this is why..." kind of guy. And so, if no hole can be found, then it is a solid fact.

Everyone with an opinion/Perspective can explain why they hold that opinion. That is a good enough 'reason' for that person. Thats all that is needed, as far as I am concerned, for something to be 'denied'.

You declined my challenge...because you agree with me... Well that's good, though you didn't have to use so many words. I'm not sure that you read all of my posts. Or maybe you just didn't understand some of the things I said in them. In either case, I suggest you look back over them (for I posted a few). You may realize you wasted a lot of breath on some of this.

If you have a particular post that you think would interest me, from which I might actually learn something new, hear something that I haven't heard, a 'thought' of which you are particularly 'proud', that is particularly relevent, please, link me. Otherwise, lots of people have lots of posts... I waste no breath, thank you.
And if you have said in your posts some that I have said, well... you must be quite intelligent and good looking! *__-

Otherwise, which measurement of worth are you going by when you say that you use more "meaningful" terms than knowledge.

When you say
"I know ....."
I say that
"I think ....."
When you say
"I believe ...."
I say,
"I think ...."
Because I don't 'know' and I don't 'believe', I do 'think', though, I do theorize and hypothesize and all sorts of other things; I simply don't 'know' or 'believe'. Ok?

I must ask about... "silence is truth"... ... what does it mean to you personally?

Do you realize what you are asking? I think not, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. Are you asking me to 'prove/demonstrate' by a verbal explanation how 'Silence is Truth'? Can't 'argue' with silence, can you? Hah!
It is an understanding that 'arises' (from 'within'), or not. If you are 'arguing', then the answer is obviously, not.
Let me ask you a question; Have the words (or a similar pattern or words), "All that I have ever 'believed' or 'known' is a LIE!" ever left your lips?

I will offer, however;
"In Silentium, Verum!" (In Silence, Truth!") - Book of Fudd (1:2)
Notice the "however", following all that I have said of 'assumptions'? All that said, you forge ahead with;
"And if we're on the same page, nameless, then you must realize that you just declared "silence is truth", which isn't an assumption. In fact, it blatantly claims something to be fact."
indicating non-comprehension of what I said (and poor reading skills), and the meaning, contextually, of my use of 'however'.
Whatever... this is boring me.

And if we're on the same page, nameless, then you must realize that you just declared "silence is truth", which isn't an assumption.

Actually, what I said is; "In Silence, Truth."
Read more carefully. They do not mean the same thing.
You see no assumptions? Ok, then there is your 'truth' without assumptions. Of course, all you need do is say, "I disagree" to refute any claims of 'undeniability' (which I would not make), so... I'm not playing your rigged and shakey game.

... it still must mean something to you, for you have quoted such a thing twice thus far.

It certainly does. And I might be tempted to offer some sort of 'meaningful explanation', but I feel that you are not looking to 'understand' but to argue. So, I won't.
Maybe, someday, it might mean something to you, also.

Then again, I suppose you could just be throwing out random quotes that mean nothing to you.

Again, whats your problem?

But if that be the case, at least throw out quotes that do not bluntly say "this is truth", when the rest of your post is saying "I actually agree with you, and we're on the same page".

Sounds like a personal problem to me...
You again, rashly, put words in my mouth, and/or misquote me. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You obviously have an agenda, what might it be? Have I 'threatened' a 'belief' of yours? Spiked your ego somehow?
Though we might be on the 'same page', for a moment, the actual area of 'overlap' is, obviously, miniscule.

So, unless you have a focused and specific and respectfully meaningful question on something that I have said, involving no 'agenda' other than perhaps learning something or gaining some food for thought, I think that this conversation is over, and I'll leave you in the Silence in which is found Truth (who knows, you might get lucky). If that means nothing to you now, perhaps someday... perhaps never. Either way is fine by me.

mark black wrote:

mark black wrote:
No, you clearly don't understand, and my perspective is not compatible with yours. Furthermore, not all perspectives are equally valid. Yours is wrong for the reasons stated.

naemelss wrote:
I'm glad that I spotted 'this' egoic babble before reading the rest of your post. Saves me time and trouble..

You again...
(Rather 'selective' quote. You left out much of your emotional 'rant'...)
Aww, are you miffed that I didn't feel that a conversation with you would be fruitful? Wounded your ego? Your words indicated ignorance that is beyond my desire or ability to educate in this venue. A conversation would have been fruitless for you, me, and anyone that might be reading it. Only some years and 'life', with much critical thought and many epiphanies will (might) bring you to such an understanding as to be able to find fruit/meaning in what I am offering. Understand? Ok?
Is your post's positioning 'here' actually asking jehocifer for 'support' (as it seems)? Your timing is perfect, have you been stalking me waiting for an opportunity to gain some supportive strokes? Isn't that rather pathetic? I would think so.
There, I responded to your post, satisfied?
Now, take it somewhere else please.
Wounded egos do heal and also reveal...
nameless out

^^^ Jehocifer and mark
Go ahead with your attacks, they are impotent and meaningless childish hurt ego rants. Your 'need' to argue rather than understand need be practiced with another. I don't play juvenile pissing contests. What you 'feel' about me and what I offer is meaningless to anyone but yourselves. If i had seen this first, i wouldn't have wasted my time in responding to mark's 'seemingly sincere' (but now I see to be 'trolling') post in the 'final frontier thread. What are you boys, 19 -20? Such delicate egos to have to sit here having your little shark attack (fooling no one but yourselves, perhaps) on some internet poster that happened to disturb your egos. So sad.

I truncated our 'discussions' early as per some good advice;

The great Acarya Maitreya says in his
Saptadasa-bhumi-sastra-yogacarya:

Before accepting a challenge for a
debate, one should consider whether his opponent is
a person worthy of carrying on debate through the
process of proposition (siddhanta), reason (hetu),
example (udaharana), etc. He should, before
proceeding there, consider whether the debate will
exercise any good influence on his opponent, the
umpire, and the audience. But first of all, he
should consider whether a debate - even won - would
not bring him more harm than benefit.

Don't worry, wounded egos heal. Or not.
Either way, I'd suggest that you both simply ignore what I say if you are incapable of finding 'meaning' in the words. No harm done, none in the least.
Bye bye...

jehocifer wrote:After reading what you said, mark, I decided not to truly reply to nameless' rant.

I responded reasonably and intelligently to your post and this is the maturity and intellect with which you respond? Damned childish way of saying that you 'cannot' respond intelligently to my reply. You use his problem as an excuse to duck from your responsibility for an 'intelligent' response. Have fun. I'll put you both on my ignore list (as if) and recommend that you do likewise.
Pffft!

Edward J. Bartek wrote:Isn't energy an undeniable, universal, verifiable, rational, material truth, unless something further is found beyond it?

Mind/quantum wave field/Consciousness/Perspective is the 'matrix' within which 'energy/stuff' manifests existence. 'Information waves'/Chaos/Mind give 'rise' to 'matter/energy' concepts of Perspective/Consciousness.
There is no'thing' 'out there'...