The Truth Trap.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

If you cant say what you are certain about using words then thats not very helpful in an enquiry concerning what your certain about.

I see.

There are many ways to define 'certainty'.

My definition ...

Originally Posted by Ground

...what I call 'certainty' is not about 'knowing something [as object]', is empty of a sentiment of truth, is empty of subject and object.
In what I call 'certainty' there is neither self nor other. That is why I called it an 'experience of imperturbability' ... which however is liguistically limited because there isn't an experiencer.

... may deviate from the conventional understanding of many other individuals. So actually it is a private definition which necessarily makes communication about 'certainty' impossible if my private definition is not accepted by conversation partners at least as a temporary definition in the context of this thread.

However what I can do is to temporarily accept your implied definition that 'certainty' is 'knowing something and being sure that one knows that something correctly'.
If then I apply this kind of 'certainty' I could say that I am certain that the linguistic expressions I have been using are authentic expressions.
Or
I know that the words I am applying do express what I want to express.
Or
I know that there isn't any sentiment of truth involved on my side when applying language.
Or
I am certain that I am applying language as language and that I am not applying language as truth.
Or
I am certain that the expression 'There aren't any truths' is appropriate from my perspective.

See ... there are many objects of expression I am certain about.




But usually I prefer to use the word 'know' or knowledge' for linguistic expressions that evoke a meaning that can be validated by everybody. E.g. 'If you pick up a stone and throw it, it will sooner or later fall back to the ground." Everybody may validate this, independent of his/her beliefs.
So 'knowledge' can be transmitted inter-individually by means of language and does not depend on beliefs.

And my usual use of 'certainty' is that it differs from 'knowledge' in that although as an experience it can be expressed with language it cannot be transmitted by means of language but does not depend on beliefs either.

Finally 'belief' is neither knowledge nor certainty but is instable since it is always affected by doubt. It also can be expressed with language but it cannot be transmitted by means of language either.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

I see.

There are many ways to define 'certainty'.

My definition ...

... may deviate from the conventional understanding of many other individuals. So actually it is a private definition which necessarily makes communication about 'certainty' impossible if my private definition is not accepted by conversation partners at least as a temporary definition in the context of this thread.

However what I can do is to temporarily accept your implied definition that 'certainty' is 'knowing something and being sure that one knows that something correctly'.
If then I apply this kind of 'certainty' I could say that I am certain that the linguistic expressions I have been using are authentic expressions.
Or
I know that the words I am applying do express what I want to express.
Or
I know that there isn't any sentiment of truth involved on my side when applying language.
Or
I am certain that I am applying language as language and that I am not applying language as truth.
Or
I am certain that the expression 'There aren't any truths' is appropriate from my perspective.

See ... there are many objects of expression I am certain about.




But usually I prefer to use the word 'know' or knowledge' for linguistic expressions that evoke a meaning that can be validated by everybody. E.g. 'If you pick up a stone and throw it, it will sooner or later fall back to the ground." Everybody may validate this, independent of his/her beliefs.
So 'knowledge' can be transmitted inter-individually by means of language and does not depend on beliefs.

And my usual use of 'certainty' is that it differs from 'knowledge' in that although as an experience it can be expressed with language it cannot be transmitted by means of language but does not depend on beliefs either.

Finally 'belief' is neither knowledge nor certainty but is instable since it is always affected by doubt. It also can be expressed with language but it cannot be transmitted by means of language either.

Ok you have defined what you are certain about. Now address the enquiry made earlier in this thread about the extent to which any conditioning you may have had could be distorting that certainty.

I would add that even if you are aware of some of that, there may be conditioning hidden from you that is affecting that certainty that you are unaware of because it remains hidden from you.

There may be very good reasons why our conditioning remains hidden from us because the details may be too painful to remember so this is not an argument for eliminating it, but simply to be aware that it may be there and therefore view our conclusions as speculative rather than certain.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ok you have defined what you are certain about. Now address the enquiry made earlier in this thread about the extent to which any conditioning you may have had could be distorting that certainty.

I would add that even if you are aware of some of that, there may be conditioning hidden from you that is affecting that certainty that you are unaware of because it remains hidden from you.

There may be very good reasons why our conditioning remains hidden from us because the details may be too painful to remember so this is not an argument for eliminating it, but simply to be aware that it may be there and therefore view our conclusions as speculative rather than certain.

don't discount the effect of vanity.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

don't discount the effect of vanity.

No matter what the details of the character might be, the point being made is that the details of the conditioning that led the mind to construct them may have been repressed (hidden from us) for very good reasons, yet are distorting our ideas about what we think we know.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Ok you have defined what you are certain about. Now address the enquiry made earlier in this thread about the extent to which any conditioning you may have had could be distorting that certainty.
I would add that even if you are aware of some of that, there may be conditioning hidden from you that is affecting that certainty that you are unaware of because it remains hidden from you.

But imputed conditioning does distort that imputed certainty only if that imputed certainty is based on a misleading sentiment of truth caused by innate truth habits. This sentiment of truth depends on the misperception that truth inheres in the object one is certain about.
But as I already said several times my imputed certainty is empty of [a sentiment of] truth because it is based on the rational conclusion and its decisive experience that ultimately everything exists only dependent on imputation. And it is that imputation that is naturally conditioned. Imputation is conditioned as are all existents existing only through that imputation. That is why there aren't any truths at all. Conditionings are only imputedly existent too. So they too are neither inherently existent nor true in the same way all other phenomena/objects incl. certainty are.

Originally Posted by Iamit

There may be very good reasons why our conditioning remains hidden from us because the details may be too painful to remember so this is not an argument for eliminating it, but simply to be aware that it may be there and therefore view our conclusions as speculative rather than certain.

Again ... your view appears to be subject to the innate truth habits. Therefore you necessarily lack the experience of imputed certainty and imputed conditioning not being contradictory. My view is empty of innate truth habits and therefore any imputed conditioning cannot affect my imputed certainty.

There is a difference between views subject to the innate truth habits and a view based on emptiness. This difference cannot be discerned in the words used to express the views but this difference can only be discerned by means of mindful introspection when objects arise in the mind upon seeing, i.e. reading, the words. And in order for an individual to be able to discern this difference in its mind, this indivdual has to undergo the transition from the innate state of dominating truth habits to the state of direct perception of emptiness of inherent existence and truth. Only then can the individual 'know' or 'be certain' 'This is how it is now and this is different from how it has been before' thus 'knowing' the difference between views subject to the innate truth habits and a view based on emptiness.


--
I have excessively applied the word 'imputed' in this posting to express and stress that when I say that everything exists only through imputation and therefore lacks any truth this of course also applies to all I am expressing in this posting and all preceding postings and to this very statement too.
In the sphere of conceptuality and its linguistic expressions there is necessarily an infinite regress involved from the perspective of the subject expressing emptiness of inherent existence which is emptiness of [objective] truth.

[Arrowahn]

Thank you :)

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

But imputed conditioning does distort that imputed certainty only if that imputed certainty is based on a misleading sentiment of truth caused by innate truth habits. This sentiment of truth depends on the misperception that truth inheres in the object one is certain about.
But as I already said several times my imputed certainty is empty of [a sentiment of] truth because it is based on the rational conclusion and its decisive experience that ultimately everything exists only dependent on imputation. And it is that imputation that is naturally conditioned. Imputation is conditioned as are all existents existing only through that imputation. That is why there aren't any truths at all. Conditionings are only imputedly existent too. So they too are neither inherently existent nor true in the same way all other phenomena/objects incl. certainty are.


Again ... your view appears to be subject to the innate truth habits. Therefore you necessarily lack the experience of imputed certainty and imputed conditioning not being contradictory. My view is empty of innate truth habits and therefore any imputed conditioning cannot affect my imputed certainty.

There is a difference between views subject to the innate truth habits and a view based on emptiness. This difference cannot be discerned in the words used to express the views but this difference can only be discerned by means of mindful introspection when objects arise in the mind upon seeing, i.e. reading, the words. And in order for an individual to be able to discern this difference in its mind, this indivdual has to undergo the transition from the innate state of dominating truth habits to the state of direct perception of emptiness of inherent existence and truth. Only then can the individual 'know' or 'be certain' 'This is how it is now and this is different from how it has been before' thus 'knowing' the difference between views subject to the innate truth habits and a view based on emptiness.


--
I have excessively applied the word 'imputed' in this posting to express and stress that when I say that everything exists only through imputation and therefore lacks any truth this of course also applies to all I am expressing in this posting and all preceding postings and to this very statement too.
In the sphere of conceptuality and its linguistic expressions there is necessarily an infinite regress involved from the perspective of the subject expressing emptiness of inherent existence which is emptiness of [objective] truth.

Your concern about something you call "Innate truth habits" seems to be at the root of the issue for you. Please define the meaning of this term as you see it,

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by Iamit

No matter what the details of the character might be, the point being made is that the details of the conditioning that led the mind to construct them may have been repressed (hidden from us) for very good reasons, yet are distorting our ideas about what we think we know.

Well of course if you close your eyes and look at the darkness all you will be able to study is darkness!

The fact is we won't look at the things we hate but just adore the things we like, and then we sit here and wonder at the fact that our view is distorted!

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Your concern about something you call "Innate truth habits" seems to be at the root of the issue for you. Please define the meaning of this term as you see it,

It is a human conditioning all humans are born with. As that it is the projection of inherent existence on phenomena perceived which then appear as if truely existing, i.e. existing from their own side, i.e. being truely how they appear, while all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation. As innate habit it is beyond conscious control, i.e.. humans are not aware of it because it affects perception from the outset and so humans cannot know how life would be when this habit is dissolved. This habit is the cause of all afflictive emotionalities like liking, disliking, attachment, aversion, pride, anger, fear, greed etc. A human individual can only become aware of it if told in a way that is appropriate considering its individual conditionings.


So the concept "Innate truth habits" is very buddhist, actually madhyamaka buddhist. But in contrast to the madhyamaka buddhist concept it is secular in that it does not require all the buddhist belief stuff and can be understood as a kind of psychotherapeutic approach to life.
I did get to it when philosophically investigating into 'truths' and the fact that the world knows so many conflicting 'truths' which leads to conflicts like fight, murder, war, terrorism but also endless debates and waste of time.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Ground

It is a human conditioning all humans are born with. As that it is the projection of inherent existence on phenomena perceived which then appear as if truely existing, i.e. existing from their own side, i.e. being truely how they appear, while all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation. As innate habit it is beyond conscious control, i.e.. humans are not aware of it because it affects perception from the outset and so humans cannot know how life would be when this habit is dissolved. This habit is the cause of all afflictive emotionalities like liking, disliking, attachment, aversion, pride, anger, fear, greed etc. A human individual can only become aware of it if told in a way that is appropriate considering its individual conditionings.


So the concept "Innate truth habits" is very buddhist, actually madhyamaka buddhist. But in contrast to the madhyamaka buddhist concept it is secular in that it does not require all the buddhist belief stuff and can be understood as a kind of psychotherapeutic approach to life.
I did get to it when philosophically investigating into 'truths' and the fact that the world knows so many conflicting 'truths' which leads to conflicts like fight, murder, war, terrorism but also endless debates and waste of time.

"while all phenomena actually exist only through intuitive and/or conceptual imputation"

Is that your absolute statement of certainty? Is there no chance that there is somthing hidden from you that you have not considered that may contradict it? If the answer is "No"". do you realize the implications of that No? That you are aware of everything in the totality of the manifestation that may contradict that so called certainty. Is that actually your position?

Please clarify.