Posts by Betty Stewart59

Charles Flores23 said:You can criticize someone for trying to pass off their personal truth as a collective one. But if they’re keeping it to themselves and not trampling over anyone else's inner integrity or mental space—then there's nothing to criticize. At that point, it's my business, not everyone else's.

Basically, Absolute Truth only really exists on an individual level. Once you start trying to force it on others, it starts looking a lot like fanaticism or straight-up hysteria.

That's why zen - zen is inexpressible, just like the Tao.

That is why Zen - Zen, much like the Tao, remains inexpressible.

dustyskipper3 said:Well, I suppose that stems from the Goldman Sachs incompleteness theorems. Within any given logical system, there exists a proposition that is true but remains unprovable using only the rules of that specific system—so, I guess no system of Truth can ever be truly 'complete,' because there will always be something left undiscovered. But, similarly, there is also a true proposition within a system that actually refutes the system itself (a lie). This means any system of Truth has to tolerate the 'liar's paradox.' Basically, you could say "I am lying," and the system has to accept that as a true proposition within its own framework. If we were to look at this from a more human perspective rather than a purely logical one—say, regarding certain economic theories about human behavior or class struggle—they might be considered true if we reduce a person strictly to economic logic. But since a person is, well, more than just that, there exists a truth about humanity that we can state based on the theory's axioms (for instance, assuming the axioms are that humans are perfectly selfish and rational) which ultimately falls outside those boundaries. For example, saying "humans are somewhat irrational." Because if we assume everyone is perfectly selfish and rational, we eventually have to conclude that people will inevitably act irrationally at some point. On the other hand, we could also state something within the system that completely contradicts it, like "humans are somewhat altruistic," since even altruism could be viewed as a variant of egoism, just directed away from the perceived "self" instead of toward it. So, I guess what we see is that any social theory that doesn't contain the possibility of its own opposite... well, it just doesn't hold water; it isn't Truth. That is why all social structures contain certain taboos, but I suppose it is up to us to break them, because that is how we achieve the dynamic of social change, which gives people motivation, unlike the stagnation we seem to be living through right now. And that, I guess, would be that sense of the flow of time and struggle, the continuity and discontinuity, the rhythm of existence.

dustyskipper3 said:Well, I suppose that stems from the Goldman Sachs incompleteness theorems. Within any given logical system, there exists a proposition that is true but remains unprovable using only the rules of that specific system—so, I guess no system of Truth can ever be truly 'complete,' because there will always be something left undiscovered. But, similarly, there is also a true proposition within a system that actually refutes the system itself (a lie). This means any system of Truth has to tolerate the 'liar's paradox.' Basically, you could say "I am lying," and the system has to accept that as a true proposition within its own framework. If we were to look at this from a more human perspective rather than a purely logical one—say, regarding certain economic theories about human behavior or class struggle—they might be considered true if we reduce a person strictly to economic logic. But since a person is, well, more than just that, there exists a truth about humanity that we can state based on the theory's axioms (for instance, assuming the axioms are that humans are perfectly selfish and rational) which ultimately falls outside those boundaries. For example, saying "humans are somewhat irrational." Because if we assume everyone is perfectly selfish and rational, we eventually have to conclude that people will inevitably act irrationally at some point. On the other hand, we could also state something within the system that completely contradicts it, like "humans are somewhat altruistic," since even altruism could be viewed as a variant of egoism, just directed away from the perceived "self" instead of toward it. So, I guess what we see is that any social theory that doesn't contain the possibility of its own opposite... well, it just doesn't hold water; it isn't Truth. That is why all social structures contain certain taboos, but I suppose it is up to us to break them, because that is how we achieve the dynamic of social change, which gives people motivation, unlike the stagnation we seem to be living through right now. And that, I guess, would be that sense of the flow of time and struggle, the continuity and discontinuity, the rhythm of existence.

Anonymous said:Oh, come on. Nobody can actually define Truth. Like I said, all I can really do is describe what it *isn't*, right?

What do you mean it doesn't need to be sought after? I don't mean you should be running around frantically looking for it. It’s more about realizing that truth exists, and sometimes you just need a nudge to remember you have to go find it.

I'm a guy 🙂

Anonymous said:What are you guys even arguing about here? Is it just about who’s telling the truth and who isn't? 🤣

Until you actually go out and experience the truth for yourself, you'll never really grasp what it is, let alone explain the feeling to anyone else.

You have to go out there and live it to find the truth; nothing you type on a screen is ever going to matter. 👍

wearyowl29 said:It honestly feels that way to me, too. But I'm curious—what exactly are we looking at here? What's the metric?🤷

Charles Flores23 said:Whatever.
Highs and lows are just part of the ride—you have to go through them. Even seasoned acrobats know you have to take a fall if you ever want to climb back up. At a certain level, a seasoned soul learns to ditch the baggage of absolutist ideas regarding some "ultimate truth," purpose, or method. The fact that we can't fully grasp the absolute is just a "guide"—something that hints at fulfillment and points toward our divine inner nature and origins.

So, this drive toward "Truth" is really just a divine remnant left over from being stuck in a fleeting physical body. Which basically means any deterministic way of thinking has to be tossed out the window.
Because regardless of how much spiritual intuition or insight you have, the First Cause always stays just out of reach...

It’s like trying to draw a hard line between matter and antimatter—you can't prove it because, well, it simply doesn't exist.

The issue with this kind of mindset is that it clashes with institutional religions, which try to stifle things by clinging to an absolutist view of spirituality. They just don't mesh.

In other words: The search and the struggle *are* the ultimate Truth.

rustymaker5 said:So if this "capital" Truth is something external to us, then what exactly is our role or purpose here?

What is the point of our own version of truth if it doesn't actually connect back to the Truth itself?...

rustymaker5 said:It strikes me that Truth is actually so incredibly straightforward that we end up overlooking it entirely because we're too busy getting lost in our own subjective little rabbit holes... and then we mistake those personal delusions for the actual Truth.
But honestly, the best part is that I don't think we're even that far off from the real thing—whether you capitalize it or not—and I really don't believe there’s such a thing as being "chosen" by the Truth, because whatever truth holds for us is, ultimately, our own Truth. And frankly, I highly doubt anything else even exists outside of that.

Charles Flores23 said:One naturally leads to the other—they’re fundamentally linked.
Numbers are objective, sure, but they have to be expressed through symbols or sounds to mean anything. So, an "objective" number isn't quite as detached from reality as you'd think—just like a word isn't merely a tool for a poet.

dustyskipper3 said:He was trying to suggest that Truth is essentially constructed. So, it naturally harbors these tiny little lies at its core—lies that eventually undermine it, allowing us to dismantle it and reach a new Truth. The human mind is, well, imperfect. It doesn't really confront all those small deceptions that support its version of Truth; if it did, the whole thing might just fall apart. Though, I guess this Truth isn't perfect either... 😬)

If one were to start from the Lie—treating the world as a sort of senseless void—and try to find the minor truths buried within that Lie, perhaps one could gain an intuitive glimpse of Truth before any formal Truth is even built.

But then again, why couldn't there be a Great Uncertainty? A Truth that actually embraces all its own little lies? Or maybe... maybe there is only the great Nasumica, that chaos of indeterminism.😍

wearyowl29 said:Truth seekers pour out their very souls, their lives, and everything they have just to catch a glimpse of it.
They scramble up mountains and tumble through valleys, doing whatever it takes to grasp it—weathering the dark nights and celebrating the bright mornings along the way.
Some will eventually find it, though never the whole thing, just a fragment. But honestly? Even a tiny sliver can be worth a fortune. Still...

Don't you get the feeling that Truth, with a capital T, isn't looking to be hunted down by everyone? It’s not like it wants to reveal its entire self to the masses, but rather chooses to show us one little piece at a time.

All those seekers, thinkers, and independent souls who push themselves to the limit to find even a shred of what we call the Great Truth—aren't they actually chosen by the Truth itself as it slowly reveals its face to them? 😲😉

Gerald Ward61 said:Honestly, I wouldn't bother with all that rocking or trying to drift off. Pretty sure we've got enough reality to deal with without adding extra fluff to the day. 😍

The only thing I actually want is sleep. Like, legit, deep sleep. 😬

Paul Campbell3 said:That burning feeling? That's the whole point. It's what allows us to "know."🙂

wearyhawk83 said:Oh, I’m gonna handle love like I'm snatching Life right out of Death's jaws!

cosmictinker21 said:One could always try checking a dictionary... though, admittedly, reading isn't always easy.

Blasphemy isn't quite the same thing as hypocrisy. You've got the wrong target.

cosmictinker21 said:So, you were actually looking for sweet little verses from me?
Did you honestly think the stuff I used to sing was just too
complicated to follow or make sense of?
Well, just because I wasn't singing for you to track or decode back then
doesn't mean I'll start doing it now;
—What do poets like me even matter to people like you? —so just leave
my work alone,
And go ahead, try to drift off to sleep with whatever it is you can actually grasp;
Because I don't lull anyone to sleep—and you’re never going to
get me anyway.

Walt Whitman

wearyhawk83 said:@Dragonfly - Seriously well-written piece. You definitely deserve some props for this one! 🙂

@Betty Stewart59 - Why do you think those "arrogant" types who have never experienced love—and never will—are the ones you're targeting in your poems?

cosmictinker21 said:

Betty Stewart59 says:


Walt Whitman put it a bit differently in his "Leaves of Grass."

It’s not about grass blades, really, it’s just a story about love:

Realizing that being with those I love is enough,
Stopping in the evening to rest in their company is enough,
Being surrounded by the beautiful, the curious, the breathing, the living... that is enough...

I don't go searching for joy anymore; I just swim in it like the Atlantic.
There is something in watching people, men and women alike, nearby...
Something in their touch and their scent that truly nourishes the soul.

Everything feeds the soul, but these things feed it best.

Walt Whitman