1st and 2nd order truth

[Identity]

Oke, so the distinction between first order absolute truth and second order relative truth is pretty clear to me.

first order absolute truth is being, direct experience , a merging of one’s sense of self with everything, becoming the field of awareness, god.

second order is conceptual, the ego mind, a construction of concepts language, a limited explanation.

I also grasp the collapse of these two; in the end the second order IS also the first order in this strange-loopy way. 

What I’m struggling with, is the relationship between the two.
How does the second order try to grasp the first order?

I see that it’s a sub-set, a limited part trying to grasp the infinite…

but how can this have any resemblance at all?

it appears that there can be ‘degrees of truthfulness’ or accuracy to the second order mind constructions. 

How is this the case and on what grounds does it depend?

Leo mentions that ‘utility’ is not an accurate measurement for it. Yet utility appears to me to have at least something to do with it, right? I mean, one’s ability to manipulate means that at least something of the construction makes sense. It’s a step forward from constructions that don’t even ‘work’ right?

what would it mean to have a second order construction that is as truthful as humanly possible?

in a sense, this is what Leo is trying to do, right? Any and all episodes and communications happen at this second order level. Fingers pointing to the moon. 
What makes some of Leo’s second order work ‘more truthful’ than a teaching like Andrew Tate’s ?

This kind of questioning is trippy, because it’s like going meta on second order understanding whilst still being in the domain of the second order, lol.

oke, enough mindgames, let’s do some survival stuff ✌?

[Leo Gura]

@Identity Yes! Very good line of questioning.

It's murky territory.

2nd order truth can take on closer resemblance of 1st order. For example, you can have a drawing of a kangaroo which poorly resembles a kangaroo, like a kid's crayon drawing, or one done by a professional artist.

But what makes things really weird is that you can have an abstract painting which looks nothing like a kangaroo but captures the essence of a kangaroo better than a photograph.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Identity]

@Leo Gura Oeh, thank you. Am going to sit with that one for a while ??

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Identity said:

Oke, so the distinction between first order absolute truth and second order relative truth is pretty clear to me.

first order absolute truth is being, direct experience , a merging of one’s sense of self with everything, becoming the field of awareness, god.

second order is conceptual, the ego mind, a construction of concepts language, a limited explanation.

I also grasp the collapse of these two; in the end the second order IS also the first order in this strange-loopy way. 

What I’m struggling with, is the relationship between the two.
How does the second order try to grasp the first order?

I see that it’s a sub-set, a limited part trying to grasp the infinite…

but how can this have any resemblance at all?

it appears that there can be ‘degrees of truthfulness’ or accuracy to the second order mind constructions. 

How is this the case and on what grounds does it depend?

Leo mentions that ‘utility’ is not an accurate measurement for it. Yet utility appears to me to have at least something to do with it, right? I mean, one’s ability to manipulate means that at least something of the construction makes sense. It’s a step forward from constructions that don’t even ‘work’ right?

what would it mean to have a second order construction that is as truthful as humanly possible?

in a sense, this is what Leo is trying to do, right? Any and all episodes and communications happen at this second order level. Fingers pointing to the moon. 
What makes some of Leo’s second order work ‘more truthful’ than a teaching like Andrew Tate’s ?

This kind of questioning is trippy, because it’s like going meta on second order understanding whilst still being in the domain of the second order, lol.

oke, enough mindgames, let’s do some survival stuff ✌?

2nd order will always be finite...but yes you can be closer to Infinity and farther away.  Leo's videos move you closer to Infinity while Tate moves you farther away.  Infinity being Truth.   Yet the paradoxical nature of God also means that there is no farther or closer since those are relative.   So you have to remember that Oneness is paradoxical and this is a feature not a bug.   Here's the mindfuck  - as you said it's like going meta on 2nd order because it's only paradoxical from 2nd order.    This is because 2nd order cannot grasp 1st order in its totality - otherwise it would BE the totality and it wouldn't be 2nd order.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by Inliytened1

[spiritual memes]

I think the best second order truths act as pointers to the first order

[UnbornTao]

Maybe two grounded distinctions to clarify this line of inquiry are direct experience and intellectual understanding.

Seems like the mind wants to keep this work abstract, where it is safe.

For sure they sound better. For some it can even give us pride by showing our intelligence and eloquence.

It's useful to ground it on something tangible and specific.

[OnePointTwo]

15 hours ago, Identity said:

This kind of questioning is trippy, because it’s like going meta on second order understanding whilst still being in the domain of the second order, lol.

Here's a tricky question: How do you become a good movie critic? If it's by being completely objective, then your criticisms will be very shallow ... discussing the colours on the screen, the length of the movie, how loud the sounds were. If it's by reflecting on the quality of your criticisms, then you've created a paradox, because you have to first become a good critic of critics, which entails becoming a good critic of critics of critics of critics. If it's by being sober, then you are prohibited from drinking tea or coffee in the 10 hours before watching the movie. I'd say the way to be a good critic is by creating a consistent set of artistic standards, used for every movie, and by trying to be in the same mood when critically watching.

 

Similarly, you can come up with a consistent set of principles for truth. If first order truths are a subset of second order truths, then you might think about the principles of first order before trying to specify second order. Here is my attempt based on very limited understanding.

First order truths:

1. Are basic forms that can be perceived by a consciousness. Basic form meaning a shape that provides a reduction of matter (e.g. box, sphere, spike, liquid, spiral, blue, high-pitched noise, sweet taste) or a conglomeration of basic forms (e.g. paper ball, cup containing clear liquid, ink fractal on plastic sheet, sounds with consistent rhythm and tone). If a consciousness never perceives a form, then it can't be said to be true.
2. Are not processed by the ego. To keep us alive, the ego places weight and meaning on perception, distorting what you see. Our ego changes due to mood, but first order truths shouldn't change with our mood.

If you believe these axioms (like how you believe the axioms of whole numbers or the periodic table) then a few things are implied. Axiom 1 implies that first order truths vary between beings; some people have perfect pitch, while others are tone deaf; some people are straight up blind. It also implies that first-order truths are not necessarily fixed. There is a theory that ancient people, with exactly the same eyes as us, could not see the color blue as vividly as we see it today. Some people who take psychedelics permanently discover new colours and patterns. 

OK, I may as well construct axioms for second order truths as well.

Second order truths:

1. Are symbolic forms that can be perceived by a consciousness. Symbolic form meaning a shape that provides a reduction of basic forms (e.g. speaker, planet, needle, orange juice, staircase, midday sky, piano sound, taste of cane sugar) or a conglomeration of symbolic forms (e.g. scrunched up exam results, glass of Sprite on a TV commercial, polaroid picture of an old oak tree in my garden, acoustic cover of Time to Pretend). If a consciousness can't perceive a symbolic form, then it can't be said to be true.
2. Are not internally projected: thought about without sensing. Many people have the ability to project visions, sounds, smells and tastes, sometimes without realising. For instance, your perception of having a head is a second order truth, but imagining the back of your head or different hair is a projection.

I would go further and say there is a 3rd order "truth" that involves projections, ideologies, inductive logic and our beliefs about things we haven't encountered. I'd be interested to hear the objections to this view.

 

Does defining things in parts like this help you to reason about them, or make you feel like you are imposing artificial constructs?

[Leo Gura]

Imagine you take some Legos and build a castle. Now imagine you take some Legos and build a large Lego brick. In this second case your 2nd order object points at the 1st order, whereas the castle does not do that. You could use Lego bricks to point to the fact that all things are made of Lego bricks if you are clever with your constructions. That's like what my video attempt to do.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Razard86]

On 8/28/2022 at 7:26 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Identity Yes! Very good line of questioning.

 

But what makes things really weird is that you can have an abstract painting which looks nothing like a kangaroo but captures the essence of a kangaroo better than a photograph.

Might need to do a whole video on this one. I get it....its called impressionable, or expression art. But this statement is so murky its well...murky.