2) the second one, to which I generally refer, is the common sense of fact, ie. some 'real' thing of the material/manifested world ... in this sense a dream or a belief is not a 'fact' because the dream is a pure product of imagination ... there is no 'substantial' reality ... in this definition, ego is not a fact because ego is unsubstantial, purely conceptual ... this understanding is generally referred to as 'relative facts'
3) the third one is the absolute fact, and in this sense there is only one real true fact which could be called 'I-am-ness' or beingness or awareness or presence or 'what is' or Self or whatever other name pointing to the reality of being. This is the absolute fact. Which needs no proof and no demonstration, it is obvious and self-evident for anyone.
I must admit that sometimes I switch from the second understanding to the third one, but I never consider the first understanding to be 'fact', I rather call it 'illusion'.
Hope I did clarify somewhat this rather confused situation ...
So, if that's the case that you switch between 2 and 3, then....explain, if you will, why you referred to this post here as a fact:
We live in an hypocritical society where it is considered shameful to beg for money or food ... this is not the case in many other cultures eg. Asian culture where begging is not considered shameful (many Buddhist monks beg for their food and people consider it as an opportunity for their karma to help monks by giving them offerings) ... this is due to our 'materialistic' approach based on material exchange: I give you food or money IF you give me your work, this is 'conditional' (there is a 'IF') ... so we always have to 'merit' things by our own actions, we learn this very early at school, when we do the 'right' things, what others expect from us, then we are rewarded ... this could be called 'conditional love': I love you BECAUSE you do what I tell you, else I reject you or punish you ... this is not 'unconditional love' which is 'I love you for what you ARE ' (not for what you 'DO' or don't do) ... therefore we have learned very early to 'cheat' and adopt attitudes expected by others, to conform to the rules, which is the hypocrisy in which we live, we wear 'masks', a social 'facade' ... there is no truth in this, we are not 'real' ... we become alien to ourselves, second-hand persons ... hence all the neuroses of our time ... there is no consistency between what we think, what we say and what we do ...
This is where you referred to it as a fact and blatantly said that your statement was not a judgement, but a fact:
You are making a confusion between a 'judgement' and a mere statement of facts ... seeing 'what is' is not a judgement ...
So, you're clearly saying that your post above about society is a fact.
Ok, well, please Phil, enlighten us on how this relates to your above definitions of the word 'fact'.
If the only absolute fact is I AM, well, clearly your post does not in any possible way, fit into category number 3 since the post is a judgmental diatribe against society from start to finish. Anyone who is anyone can notice this.
Then, number 2 says this: in this definition, ego is not a fact because ego is unsubstantial, purely conceptual ... this understanding is generally referred to as 'relative facts'
Umm, so, you're basically admitting that your initial post about society is not
a fact, because it is merely an ego perspective! If you then claim that it is not
ego perspective, then I'd LOVE to know what perspective that your initial post about society came from? Are you insinuating that you alone hold Source's greater perspective of totality? Or you insinuating it is an objective fact that society is hypocritical? Can you not admit that your claim that society is hypocritical is merely your own opinion of society and not an objective fact, or are you going to continue to claim this statement as a mere fact? Let's just start with that one sentence alone about society being hypocritical. Can you know that to be true as an absolute fact? If you say no, then the rest of your post is already established as a mere unique perspective of Phil, which is....an opinion.
Phil, I don't know how much clearer any of us can show you the incredible contradictory, hypocritical nature of your own posts. You're only putting yourself more in a corner here with your posts. Because it's obvious to everyone on this board that you are merely defending a position, which is just so ironically your own Ego perspective doing as such.