Is how wrong you are episode wrong?

[NoSelfSelf]

Me watching the episode i came to the easy obvious point that isnt most important thing having your own system in place of right and wrong?.Like i could see that im wrong when someone points it out,but im only wrong from the point of view of that persons values,morals,paradigms.Im choosing to be wrong from their pov, because this thing im holding i know is right for me.So many times you can get into an argument where im right based on my direction and my mission, while it conflicts other person direction and their mission/values/identity.Thats why following spiritual teachers or any teacher is dangerous if you dont know where are they actually leading you, who are they?

With that reasoning i could be 100% right in one direction and 100% wrong in another direction.

Isnt then that we can only see that we are wrong when we expend more of who we are? So am i wrong only based on how well i know myself and know how far i want to grow? There is like no objective truth on anything besides absolute truth aka God. 

Last thing  with right or wrong i always remember Amy Whinehouse, like the right thing to do was to go to the addiction therapy ,but how do we know what is best for somebody and why then right or wrong matter in objective sense?

How wrong am i here in this reasoning?

 

[Leo Gura]

55 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

So am i wrong only based on how well i know myself and know how far i want to grow? There is like no objective truth on anything besides absolute truth aka God. 

This is incorrect.

Truth is not only the absolute. There are also many relative objective truths, which are distinct from subjective truths.

For example, you can be wrong that the Earth is flat. That would a relative objective truth.

You could be wrong about many relative objective things. For example, you could think that whales are fish when are mammals.

You can also be objectively wrong about many psychological insights and notions. For exmaple, you could be wrong science is not a belief while religion is. Many, many people are wrong in their understanding of psychology, philosophy, epistemology, science, religion, spirituality, politics, human nature, business, men vs women, etc.

You can even be objectively wrong about what is best for someone.

So, ironically, you are wrong in your understanding of this topic of wrongness

Edited June 1 by Leo Gura

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura For most of my life i was thinking about objective truths you are talking about,now i see that only truth is inside me because for me fish could = money for you food, then in terms of epistomology objective truth is coming to the essence of the nature of that thing without personal identity involved? Because i could know the objective truth for example you need great genes to be an elite athlete, but with that thinking it hurts my growth because i wont even reach my genetic potential because i would quit before even starting, so i choose to not believe it even tho im wrong.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura So my queastion was and forgot to ask,where does the personal truth fit into all of this,does it bent to the objective truth,or it can "overpower" it because everyone is different, or it has room for interpratiom based on following the objectivity? Its like they are working together but its little confusing...

[Leo Gura]

@NoSelfSelf Your writing is so unclear that I cannot answer you properly.

Write more carefully.

Edited June 3 by Leo Gura

[Keryo Koffa]

@NoSelfSelf Let's see if I get this: 

You're disillusioned with authority based objectivity and realize that truth seeking is a personal endeavor filtered through subjective lenses of purpose. Varying subjective lenses can coexist due to a difference in lifestyle, purpose, intent. Since all external information is essentially a claim, you emphasize how essential Self-Understanding is, being the only way to actually access truth. 

I see you asking how we know what's best. You only know what works in retrospect, one can have experiential frameworks, good intentions and carefully observe situations to make informed decisions but we cannot predict the actual future. God may know all possible courses of action and which ones lead to the best outcome but we are not that omnipotent God right now that would make knowing what's right easy.

Leo mentions relative objective truths. All models of reality are theories based on observation correlating with premise, they may be better informed and dismiss previous biased prescriptions based on deception and paradigm lock but they are a map, not the territory. We can get more objective by being in tune with our biases and gaining more experience to flash out and interconnect more dots. We can also create logical frameworks that are true by definition and work through that. Experience creates a deeper understanding of reality, hence more objective, less reliant on specific parts.

Regarding your example about science (objectivity) of genes limiting someone's athletic potential. Science is a study, yet it often generates claims based on lack of counterexamples creating dangerous and stifling paradigms of limitation that can create toxic narratives until they're shattered by someone like Wim Hof proving them wrong. Science is not Objectivity, healthy science knows its limitation and strives to be as objective as possible, but it can only do so much. But then maybe you want to know about that example from a perspective of absolute truth. If you were omnipotent and knew the extent of your athletic potential, it would still give you a choice to start or not to, it would transform your struggle from desiring to be the best to an activity you would decide to engage in out of the pure joy of it, or make a better decision that would allow you to compete without wasting time.

Note that nothing you hear is absolute objectivity, most of the time we generate self-limiting paradigms based on previous experiences. Question others, question science, question spirituality, question me, question Leo and most importantly question yourself and your own beliefs.

Regarding your second reply about the relation between Absolute Truth, Objective Truth and Subjective Truth. Absolute Truth is the ground and fabric of reality, the source of all possible experiences and the exact way it manifests itself through you, that is the direct experience of it uninterpreted. Subjective Truths are constructed in response to that Absolute Truth and are an interpretation of it, as Leo mentioned there are Relatively Objective Truths like the earth being round, these are based on continuous multi-perspectival observation by different people agreeing on the premises. You might say: I prefer apples, another might say: I prefer oranges. Those are subjective truths, the relative objective truth is that you both agree on the existence of apples and oranges, the absolute truth includes your preferences and the existence of those, but at the same time it renounces those, apples and oranges and taste and preference are interpretations and assessments of Absolute Phenomena given labels and forms. The absolute truth as I understand it is the ground of being from which all possible interpretations can originate, it is and is not them, it is beyond but includes them, it is nothing but everything and makes it possible for all possible states, combinations and interpretations to coexist. Imagine there are no atoms, no ideas, no stories, just energy, pure energy vibrating at various frequencies, the same energy taking different forms, everything is the same wave, the same elephant and we just happen to see different parts of it, it is all those parts and their opposites and nothing at all, and everything too.

 

 

@Leo Gura Even with all this writing, I have questions myself, if God says "Let there be light" or "Let there be an earth", are those illusions or reality, is God playing a game of self-deception when in truth there is noting specific/infinity or is that possibility equally true to infinity, isn't everything absolute including subjective opinions? Of course they're emerging properties of observation but in themselves they have a shape inform, the ego dreams as god does. God dreams big, ego dreams small, though the ego interprets rather than creates, but then isn't imagination creation? Or is it the relation between God's intention and the Ego's misunderstanding that separates those? Then again, isn't the ego another perspective, maybe God has various scales like Absolute Unity and then a low duality state of knowing his creation and seeing it which means he'd have to externalize himself of it as a perceiver but that still feels pretty objective. Is God the ego as soon as he isn't 100% undivided? Is only nothingness absolute? Why is interpretation in and of itself as its own fabric absolute? Imagination exists as surely as the present experience in its own right. Though I guess the whole sense of self is a deception and all that comes with it but then what isn't. Pure vision, hand without the interpretation of it being a hand but just the perceived being itself? How is imagination not just another sense in that regard? Or is it the intentioned experience from God, but then on psychedelics, everything morphs, how is a morphing hand less real than a non-morphing hand when it is all equally part of God's imagination? How is any part less real than another, or is it the holarchy emerging parts on higher scales but then those scales go down and up infinitely, don't they, from the center, the present experience whatever it happens to be? So much writing, sorry Leo for taking your time, but you say a lot of things that I can't help questioning, although I know I can only really know through direct experience, I'd like to reconcile apparent contradictions.

[Basman]

On 01/06/2024 at 1:19 PM, Leo Gura said:

This is incorrect.

Truth is not only the absolute. There are also many relative objective truths, which are distinct from subjective truths.

For example, you can be wrong that the Earth is flat. That would a relative objective truth.

You could be wrong about many relative objective things. For example, you could think that whales are fish when are mammals.

You can also be objectively wrong about many psychological insights and notions. For exmaple, you could be wrong science is not a belief while religion is. Many, many people are wrong in their understanding of psychology, philosophy, epistemology, science, religion, spirituality, politics, human nature, business, men vs women, etc.

You can even be objectively wrong about what is best for someone.

So, ironically, you are wrong in your understanding of this topic of wrongness

Relative objective truth is one hell of a phrase lol.

[r0ckyreed]

This actually brings up a good question that I will make a separate post about: How is it possible to be wrong if reality is relative?

[Yimpa]

3 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

This actually brings up a good question that I will make a separate post about: How is it possible to be wrong if reality is relative?

I’m expecting many replies to that post, heh

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura So to put it simply what is the relationship between objective truth and subjective truth?

How much one has the freedom in subjective truth since by logic objective truth is superior?

 

Edited June 3 by NoSelfSelf

[zurew]

On 2024. 06. 02. at 3:48 PM, Leo Gura said:

@NoSelfSelf You writing is so unclear that I cannot answer you properly.

Write more carefully.

Its good seeing you more frequently asking for clarity (making sure you understand what is being said) before you give your reply or rebuttal.

I think it would be good to make it more of a norm on this forum (like people should encourage each other to ask for clarity rather than making strawmans and always assume whats being said).  The quality of conversations here are often times low, 1) because people aren't even talking about the same thing and are talking past each other (they use the same words, but mean completely different things - especially when it comes to philosophical and spiritual topics and 2) because people rarely ask for any kind of clarity in usual (like not just for meaning but asking whats the overall point that is being made without getting lost in instinctively arguing every detail they disagree with)

Edited June 3 by zurew

[Twentyfirst]

I have no clue but all I know is that the episode is very powerful. Only the strongest can stomach through it. Kinda ripped me a new hole but whatever 

[numbersinarow]

No, in fact every belief Leo has held for the past 10 years has been completely correct and that is why he doesn't renounce a single one during this episode and just focuses on trivial details related to attitude. Your sinful ego is too large for the presence of an existential mind such as Leo's.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

he doesn't renounce a single one during this episode and just focuses on trivial details related to attitude.

The things I spoke of were more profound and important than wrong intellectual beliefs. Beliefs are cheap. Seeing how wrongly your relative to a thing is deeper.

Our work is not really done at the level if beliefs, that would be too shallow.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura So to put it simply what is the relationship between objective truth and subjective truth?

How much one has the freedom in subjective truth since by logic objective truth is superior?

That's not an easy thing to understand. You should investigate that question in your direct experience with examples and contemplation.

I gave somewhat of an answer here:

 

[Kksd74628]

@NoSelfSelf

I get what you're saying. Basically by contructing your own worldview and bending reality intellectually you can gain edge. What I use often is even though I know it would've been more optimal if I started hobby X when I was 5 year old I still believe I beat people, because I just am so awesome and I trust to myself. In that sense I don't need to "lie" to myself, but I just take the angle that gives me best change for knockout punch. Regardless if people think that my angle sucks it doesn't dismiss that it works for what I am using it for.

[Rolo1992]

Hi, all

First of all, this video was amazing and very insightful. Of course, I have my own interpretation of it, so I will not claim a privileged perspective. I interpreted it as dealing more with epistemology rather than other branches of philosophical thinking like theories about the truth (although they are interrelated). Probably a good idea would be to define what we mean when we say that someone is wrong about something. Although the most common response would state that someone is wrong when that person believes something that is not the case, I think we don't gain much with this idea when we apply it to deep disagreements. For example, political or moral disagreements. 

I would say that someone is wrong regarding a moral or political stance when that person holds a belief without being justified, irrespective of the belief.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura So its even more complicated than i thought,ive been wrestling with this for a decade i guess it will take few more to get the bottom of it

@Kksd74628 somewhat like that but i see it like making a cocktail its hard to balnse it out

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, NoSelfSelf said:

@Leo Gura So its even more complicated than i thought,ive been wrestling with this for a decade i guess it will take few more to get the bottom of it

Don't just wrestle with it in some vague sense. Sit down with a pen and paper and think it through with some concrete examples. You will start to see how it works.

[NoSelfSelf]

@Leo Gura will do 👍 thanks