Concepts : True or False ?

Hi I have only been posting here for a couple of weeks. This whole particular type of interaction is new to me & as a result am still finding my way. One aspect of this type of communication is that it allows you to critique & review & as a result you can witness the ebb & flow of communicating in somewhat slo mo.

Something that can stand out at times is the nature of interplay between posters both rallying to impose their viewpoint upon one another. I've seen & experienced it getting quite heated at times & have lost it myself. It can also be very time consuming when you get sucked into the vortex of defending a concept.

Considering the nature of the discussions one would hope for an interaction that produced a higher reality, in a lot of cases I know this happens.

Anyway I started looking at concepts, whether it be my taste in pizza or types of cars or lofty spiritual concepts like self & identity. What I found to be the sticking point / area of conflict between say two people discussing a concept of say : ethics, is that inherent within every "man made" concept there exists both a truth & a lie.

What seems to happen with the creation of a concept is that the creator is focusing on the truth & the negator is focusing on the lie. Therefore conflict is born. If the concept is accepted by a number of people who choose not to acknowledge the lie then agreement of the concept is forged.

Either way using this principal every concept is valid & invalid at the same time. Even this concept of determining the reality of conceptual interplay. Therefore everyone is right & wrong.

Have I climbed so far up my own butt that I can't see daylight or does this hold water?

Originally Posted by not human

Either way using this principal every concept is valid & invalid at the same time. Even this concept of determining the reality of conceptual interplay. Therefore everyone is right & wrong.

Have I climbed so far up my own butt that I can't see daylight or does this hold water?

Hi, not human,

I'm not quite sure I have completely understood your post, and am running out of time to be here.

My understanding of concepts is:

no single concept is absolutely right and no single concept is absolutely wrong.

NH, it helps to ground what we're trying to say at the level of Abstract Pattern, with Concrete Examples. Got some examples of concepts we can examine these aspects with?

Originally Posted by Topology

NH, it helps to ground what we're trying to say at the level of Abstract Pattern, with Concrete Examples. Got some examples of concepts we can examine these aspects with?

Good call. For example : I can say Topo you talk too much : the statement could be shown to be both valid & invalid upon perception, there can be instances to cite both cases.
To accept the concept that Topo talks too much one has too negate the times he doesn't talk too much.
I can't think of a concept that can be shown to be infallable. What I am looking at is that if this is correct then nothing can be valid or invalid only accepted or rejected.

There is a Buddhist saying " not always so " that implies a lack of certainty in any avenue taken. I don't know if I have the ability to convey this anymore clearly, hopefully I have if not so be it. Thanks

Originally Posted by not human

Good call. For example : I can say Topo you talk too much : the statement could be shown to be both valid & invalid upon perception, there can be instances to cite both cases.
To accept the concept that Topo talks too much one has too negate the times he doesn't talk too much.
I can't think of a concept that can be shown to be infallable. What I am looking at is that if this is correct then nothing can be valid or invalid only accepted or rejected.

There is a Buddhist saying " not always so " that implies a lack of certainty in any avenue taken. I don't know if I have the ability to convey this anymore clearly, hopefully I have if not so be it. Thanks

I found this to be insightful.

According to Buddhism, nothing endures. Perhaps, not even truth, then? The wise person must be the one who is accepting or rejecting that which is most appropriately right for that given moment?

Originally Posted by yes

I found this to be insightful.

According to Buddhism, nothing endures. Perhaps, not even truth, then? The wise person must be the one who is accepting or rejecting that which is most appropriately right for that given moment?

Thanks Yes. What I am getting to is that truth & lies are only valid from a point of perception if you conciously experience a concept you need to see both aspects otherwise you are merely reacting to your truth

Originally Posted by AmethystDawn

Hi, not human,

I'm not quite sure I have completely understood your post, and am running out of time to be here.

My understanding of concepts is:

no single concept is absolutely right and no single concept is absolutely wrong.

Thats right AD ...I know it's a case of stating the bleeding obvious but when you apply it to say SpirituaL discussion the habit of refusing each others viewpoints seems worthless in the pursuit of understanding

Originally Posted by not human

Hi I have only been posting here for a couple of weeks. This whole particular type of interaction is new to me & as a result am still finding my way. One aspect of this type of communication is that it allows you to critique & review & as a result you can witness the ebb & flow of communicating in somewhat slo mo.

Something that can stand out at times is the nature of interplay between posters both rallying to impose their viewpoint upon one another. I've seen & experienced it getting quite heated at times & have lost it myself. It can also be very time consuming when you get sucked into the vortex of defending a concept.

Considering the nature of the discussions one would hope for an interaction that produced a higher reality, in a lot of cases I know this happens.

Anyway I started looking at concepts, whether it be my taste in pizza or types of cars or lofty spiritual concepts like self & identity. What I found to be the sticking point / area of conflict between say two people discussing a concept of say : ethics, is that inherent within every "man made" concept there exists both a truth & a lie.

What seems to happen with the creation of a concept is that the creator is focusing on the truth & the negator is focusing on the lie. Therefore conflict is born. If the concept is accepted by a number of people who choose not to acknowledge the lie then agreement of the concept is forged.

Either way using this principal every concept is valid & invalid at the same time. Even this concept of determining the reality of conceptual interplay. Therefore everyone is right & wrong.

Have I climbed so far up my own butt that I can't see daylight or does this hold water?

the problem is that truth is a relative term. everyone's version of truth is a direct portrayal of their own experiences, what else can it be? and that can never be overcome. even if you and i both witness an event together, we will both have completely different interpretations of it. you may have to dig a bit, but the differences are there. when people argue, its because they both see the truth as something they are trying to convey to the other person, and its offensive when other people are wrong, and just wont see it your way...isnt it? problem is, both people are thinking the same way about the other person.

You are going to die someday. That is absolutely true and in no way relative.

Originally Posted by davec

You are going to die someday. That is absolutely true and in no way relative.

Actually dave that concept can be argued depending on your cincept of death eg that death & life cannot be separate as a cycle. Only the mind views the experience as separate. See what I mean.