# Truth, Right, and Wrong: Are They Related?

## Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2... Just kidding.

To be honest, I do not like the substantive 'truth', even less when written as 'Truth'.

I think the first thing is to look on which 'objects' the adjective 'true' applies: these are propositions, or complete systems of propositions, where I think about e.g. scientific theories. What it means is that they fit to what they describe. If they do not, they are false. (Or they are meaningless ('colourless green ideas sleep furiously'), or they do not describe a situation unambiguously ('One cannot see light' ))

So simply said, one can define 'truth' as the correspondence between a description and reality. So it characterises a relationship between propositions and facts. Which e.g. means the 'Truth' is not out there. We find out if a proposition is true, if we find out that the description corresponds to reality. It is an attribute of propositions ('in there') and reality ('out there'.)

I think this meaning of 'true' is simple. But that does not mean that it is easy to find out which propositions (or theories) are true. The two topics should not be confused: what 'true' means on side, and how we find out on the other.

I think that some of the examples given are wrong: e.g that about simultaneity in relativity. Are two events simultaneous or not? Well, we know exactly how this depends on from which inertial frame you are observing these events. So we have to amend it to 'for observer A the events are simultaneous, for observer B they are not'. If we know how the perspective has influence on what people observe, then we know that there is nothing to quarrel about. It is as if two people are facing each other, and quarrel about the question if the chair stands at the right or at the left. If you take the perspective in account, the whole problem has vanished. Same with what is true today is false tomorrow. If it was an 'eternal truth' (something like F = mv, like Aristotle thought), and today we know it is false, then it was false all the time. We erroneously took it for true. But truth hasn't changed, because reality did not change.

Same with the opposite: reality changes. It is drizzling. It is really true! I see it when I look out of the window! But of course this event is local: where I live, and am now, it is drizzling. It makes no sense to quarrel about the truth of 'it is drizzling', if I do not take the context in account. When I am going somewhere else tomorrow, then it is still true that 'in Switzerland at 17.03.2018 16:30 local time, it is drizzling'. Even if it is beautiful weather at the place where I am tomorrow.

Personally, I would prefer to separate some concept pairs:

• For factual knowledge, 'true' or 'false' apply, because there can be a kind of correspondence between factual propositions and reality
• For morality, I would use 'right' or 'wrong'. There is no way that science can find out what is morally right or wrong. It can help if facts play a role in a moral decision ('if you do this some people might be killed, if you do that, the risk is negligible'). But this already presupposes that both agree on the norm that killing people is wrong.
• For aesthetics it becomes more difficult: beauty, interesting, fascinating or ugly, boring, ...The difference with morality is that it has a very strong personal factor. The compulsion to come to an agreement is less than in morality, but do not underestimate the intersubjective character of these aesthetical norms. If these is a discussion on how to renovate the old city centre, it can become very important that people agree.

Well, then they are wrong. Truth is not subjective. Beauty has a strong subjective side, morality less, but truth is definitely not subjective.

I feel such a relief after reading your post. You cogenty phrased what I was trying to say all allong in this thread, I will definitely need to work on the way I am conveying my thoughts by written text. A giant plus 1 for this one Eise.

Oh and you got me there for a split second. I got shivers all over me when I read „Yes, you must distinguish between truth1 and truth2” as my phone displayed the sentance in such a way that it took me time to see „just kidding”

• Replies 185
• Created

#### Popular Days

10 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Should we really have moved onto this topic beofre agreeing on how many angels can fit on the head of a needle?

Not wishing to start an argument (  ) but I think you mean pin ...

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not wishing to start an argument (  ) but I think you mean pin ...

Ah, so you are not Eastern Orthodox?

##### Share on other sites

Dimreepr;

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 7:29 AM, dimreepr said:

How do you know what the truth is (people lie)?

This is one of the reasons why truth is measured. We know that people lie. How do you think we know that?

We measure their statements against prior statements, the facts of the situation, the consistency of their own statements, etc., and what we know about them. Lies can be uncovered.

Quote

Some people know what the truth is but don't want to admit it, even to themselves, because it's something they don't want face.

And why do you think that is? Why would someone not want to face or admit a truth? As Koti keeps saying, the truth really does not care, so why would someone care about a truth to the point of denying it? Because it makes them feel bad. It makes them think that they are wrong or maybe bad, and no one wants to be wrong or bad, so they deny the truth.

That is the main point of this thread. Are truth, right, and wrong related? The better question is: Should they be? Can truth be mingled with right and wrong without being corrupted? I don't see how. When you mix truth with right and wrong while defining truth, what you end up with is moral truth -- or maybe you could say religious truth.  I don't remember anyone worrying about whether facts are right or wrong, they simply are facts, or they are false.

Philosophy studies truth; we don't like to see it corrupted. In most of my threads, I find that the membership is more interested in opinions regarding right and wrong than they are in any truths. Opinions are not worth squat unless they are based on truths, and those truths have to relate to the topic -- because truth is relative. In my thread Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex, I learned that sexual harassment was bad and a problem for women. That is all very interesting, but the thread was about power, and the last time I checked, Page 10, the members still had no idea of what a woman's power actually is or why governments and societies work so hard to control that power. It became a useless thread that did nothing more than take some rep points from me -- a waste of my time.

In my thread Dinosaurs, Deuteronomy, and Ebola, I learned that a lot of members have issues with religion and can not discuss anything related to religion without becoming quite stupid. I learned very little about disease, nothing of it's relationship to ecosystems, or whether or not bacteria and viruses can actually influence the self-balancing of ecosystems much like hormones self balance file forms. I was too busy addressing the member's statements on the right or wrong of religion. Again, I lost rep points and wasted my time.

In my thread Consciousness and Evolution, I had learned and did not state my ideas up front. Instead, I let the membership ramble on for seven pages while they debated whether or not all life is conscious, even though Philosophy and Science have both confirmed this is so. I am assuming that people either do not want to understand that they are consciously on a similar level with all life, or they do not like the idea of eating things that are conscious, which would be where the right and wrong of it comes in. Luckily, I had Tar covering my back and countering the down votes, so I got to finish the thread and even learned a few things -- mostly from Tar.

I would like to do a thread on Freud's ideas about infantile sexuality. I think there are some truths there that have been overlooked, but are very important to our families, our society, and our future. Can you imagine what kind of a nightmare that would be? People love to hate Freud, and everyone insists that infants are innocent, but sexuality is bad (a religious view) so infants can't be sexual. Between all of the finger pointing and rights and wrongs, I would never be able to get to the points that I would like to make or learn anything. Truth would be irrelevant.

So I wrote this thread in the hopes that I might be able to convince a few people to extract their ideas of right and wrong from the Philosophy threads. And maybe I could learn how to present my ideas in a way that does not trigger these responses, but still has integrity and holds my interests.

Gee

Strange;

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:15 AM, Strange said:

I don't think it is as simple as that. What about something that can never be known? Or that can never be proven to be true or false?

What if I think hip-hop is the greatest form of music ever invented and you think it is opera? Is one of these statements true and one false? Is one of us right and one of us wrong?

(I tried to google for some good examples, but all I found were religious websites saying, "truth is not relative because God".)

Suffice it to say that philosophers have been debating (and disagreeing about) the nature of truth for millennia and have never agreed on the truth of the matter.

I agree, it is not simple.

I tend to understand truth and visualize it as a reflection of reality. When I say this, you might think that I mean a large screen or mirror that reflects reality back, but it is more like thousands of mirrors. There is at least one reflection for every question asked, and many times there are more mirrors relating to that question because the question has more perspectives or consequences than just one answer. Some of the mirrors reflect motion as they are related to time. Some are clear, other are more or less murky, and still others are blank when we do not know the truth of the matter.

When we all see a clear, static reflection of something, we tend to call it a fact and say that it is objective. There are some truths that we see clearly and commonly, but they are not facts. I call these Common Truths, as they are common to many people within certain groups, or they are common to situations. There are also Classic Truths, which are truths that have stood the test of time. Time is very relevant to truth because of change, but also because when there is no change this improves the reflection's clarity. This is why long-held beliefs are difficult to change, because every day that passes makes the reflection more clear, more trustworthy. This does not just hold true for religious beliefs, but also for the belief that the sun will rise in the East, and you will wake up in your own bed.

I also designated Acceptable Truths as truths that could be relied upon because at least three different things pointed to the truth of it -- preferably three different types of information. I believe that Science uses a lot of Acceptable Truth and some Common Truth. There is also Simple Truth, which is just whether or not a person lied. There are Designated Truths, which are measures or directional truths that we establish so that we can measure and weigh reality. Science uses a lot of Designated Truths. Then there are Universals, which are universally true. There are Laws of Physics and Nature, which are pretty valid. There may be more, I can't remember.

When I wrote the thread, A Measure of Truth, I was looking for some way to define and classify types of truth and the reliability of different truths. I concluded that if a truth could be called Acceptable, Common, and Classic, it would be reliable enough to form a premise.

I like some hip-hop, and I like some opera. That is the truth. Truth is not right or wrong, it simply is.

Gee

iNow;

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:09 PM, iNow said:

IMO, it’s just wrong. Science deals in process, methods that help us forever journey closer to reality by helping minimaize the everpresent influence of our personal biases.

Sometimes we’re fortunate to learn new facts and arrive at certain truths as a result of this method, but the method itself is what matters. The process is a way to describe the truest essence of science, and it does so far better than any collection of data or facts ever possibly could.

Apologies if you feel this is off-topic. I’m sincerely not trying to distract from your topic and will once more watch from the sidelines. I just think people too often misrepresent what science really is and it needs to be corrected at every turn.  Perhaps that’s my inner philosopher talking, though <chuckle>.

I agree with you. The biggest differences between Philosophy and Science are their procedures or processes. The procedures differ because Philosophy puts it's work into the all important premise and believes that starting off with truth is likely to lead to more truth, but starting with a false premise is almost guaranteed to produce garbage. Science puts it's work into the testing and believes that many things can look like they are true, but testing can sometimes prove that they are garbage.

My thought is that when we start with Philosophy's truth and end with Science's testing, we are damned good and the results are very reliable. That is my inner philosopher talking.

Gee

Ten oz;

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:41 AM, Ten oz said:

White lies deny those being lied to information. Whether done to protect, calm, or whatever it still denies individuals access to information. The usefulness of a white lies is manifested internally by the one who is lying which leaves it open to error. Only when information is shared can it be tested. It is why in science peer review is so important. I have ideas I was sure were correct in my head be proven false once shared. The move eyes something the better. More brains equal more processing power. Lying is something that only benefits the liar.

When I was talking about "white lies", I stated that they were part of social truths. When you go to visit Great Aunt Matilda and ask, "How are you?" Do you really want to listen to an hour of complaints about her gall bladder surgery, her arthritis, her loss of hearing, her aches and pains, her worry about death, and her missing her favorite soap opera because you showed up at the wrong time? Or would you rather hear, "I'm pretty OK. How are you?"

Even if you insist that you would be deprived of the information and want to hear Matilda's complaints, I can assure you that it will only happen once or twice, because the third time you will stop visiting. Great Aunt Matilda knows this, so instead she will tell a few social lies.

Gee

Koti;

On ‎3‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 8:28 AM, koti said:

Sure. But the truth still doesn’t care, its always there however complex the system is. Feynman once said something along the lines of - Maybe nature is to be summerized in a theory of everything and maybe it will turn up to be an endless onyon like layer construct which we will never uncover fully” The truth still doesn’t care about his statement, or about anything said in this thread or about anything for that matter.

I agree that the truth does not care. I can not agree that it is absolute as I can not know that. I have issues with theories of everything as they tend to cherry pick the layers of onion that suit their theory.

Gee

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gees said:

This is one of the reasons why truth is measured. We know that people lie. How do you think we know that?

Because it takes one to know one; I lie and have been lied to ergo people lie.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

We measure their statements against prior statements, the facts of the situation, the consistency of their own statements, etc., and what we know about them. Lies can be uncovered.

We don't measure we judge and as often as not we get it wrong, yes they can be uncovered but we still don't know which lies get through, so my statement stands.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

And why do you think that is? Why would someone not want to face or admit a truth? As Koti keeps saying, the truth really does not care, so why would someone care about a truth to the point of denying it? Because it makes them feel bad. It makes them think that they are wrong or maybe bad, and no one wants to be wrong or bad, so they deny the truth.

Debt is a classic case in point, some keep it from a partner even to the point of suicide and some keep it from themselves putting correspondence into the bin unread, hiding behind the sofa when the bailiffs come knocking etc...

Edited by dimreepr
##### Share on other sites

On 14.03.2018 at 3:38 PM, koti said:

It doesn’t matter, the truth is out there regardless.

On 14.03.2018 at 3:41 PM, dimreepr said:

How will you know?

On 14.03.2018 at 4:16 PM, koti said:

Thats how I think the world works.

To add yet another level of abstraction:

If you're playing game/simulation, so much realistic that even electrons, protons, sub-atomic particles are simulated for scientists who are trying to find out the truth inside of particle accelerators like in CERN.. how will you find out that it is just simulation.. ?

Your eyes, your ears, might just see and hear what is generated by engine.

ps. In game engines there are sometimes appearing errors.. somebody can walk through walls.. jump way way too high.. or fly.. disappear, and appear again.. do unbelievable things, which are against original game engine, and unavailable for normal players. Cheaters, and people who are trying to destroy world, are usually banned by admins/mods/game creator, ASAP as they are detected.

ps2. Game engines have one thing in common, the more players, the more things to simulate, the slower engine works. Entire power is divided to smaller chunks of time for each simulated thing. e.g. computer chess engine can play with one grand chess master, but Chess Simultan with one hundred grand chess masters, chess AI will have 1% of its original power, and will lose..

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

computer chess engine can play with one grand chess master, but Chess Simultan with one hundred grand chess masters, chess AI will have 1% of its original power, and will lose..

And in that regard it is no different form the grandmasters it is playing.

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gees said:

When I was talking about "white lies", I stated that they were part of social truths. When you go to visit Great Aunt Matilda and ask, "How are you?" Do you really want to listen to an hour of complaints about her gall bladder surgery, her arthritis, her loss of hearing, her aches and pains, her worry about death, and her missing her favorite soap opera because you showed up at the wrong time? Or would you rather hear, "I'm pretty OK. How are you?"

Even if you insist that you would be deprived of the information and want to hear Matilda's complaints, I can assure you that it will only happen once or twice, because the third time you will stop visiting. Great Aunt Matilda knows this, so instead she will tell a few social lies.

The type of lies you described leads to people dying prematurely and or catching their families off guard when they pass suddenly. If you have had elderly relatives who have passed or are currently worried about elderly relatives who still live alone and you fear probably shouldn't you'd absolutely want to hear the truth. If Aunt Matilda was honest than maybe there is something that can be done to help her. I find the assertions that I'd visit an elderly relative less if they were honest about their state insensitive. I have relatives today that I use to seldom every visit but in lieu of learning of their daily challenges I visit for more often now out of concern. Perhaps you haven't lost many relatives close to you yet or are in a position to help care for elderly relatives but for me the last thing I want is for Aunt Matilda to feel obligated to lie for fear I will stop coming around if she doesn't. To be honest your response reads cruel.

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think that was the point of Gees's comparison. Like if I said that 2 tons of cement is enough to crush a tortoise. And you argument is that I'm a monster who hates animals.

Gees,

I have followed this thread closely from the sideline and I can say that even though the members  might not agree or might try to clarify your initial thoughts on page one, they have been very coherent and open to productive discussion, giving arguments, something that you started doubting on this forum in a previous post.

And about the subjectivity of truth, and how it is viewed, there are many quotes by philosophers out there, you mentioned the Europeans and the Indians but after reading your examples, embarrassingly a quote from a fictional character from a kids show came to my mind.

Quote

Pirates are evil?
The Marines are righteous?
These terms have always changed throughout the course of history
People who have never seen peace and people who have never seen war have different values.
Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right!
Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!

I can't say much about truth but I can definitely agree with other members that right and wrong are very situational and subjective.

Absolute truth I think needs absolute knowledge. That would violate the laws of physics. If you could step outside space and time (bear with me) and you would see space and time as finite (let's assume they are), like a circle, I guess in this scenario there could be truth. It's the only way I can think of it.

##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I don't think that was the point of Gees's comparison. Like if I said that 2 tons of cement is enough to crush a tortoise. And you argument is that I'm a monster who hates animals.

Gees,

I have followed this thread closely from the sideline and I can say that even though the members  might not agree or might try to clarify your initial thoughts on page one, they have been very coherent and open to productive discussion, giving arguments, something that you started doubting on this forum in a previous post.

And about the subjectivity of truth, and how it is viewed, there are many quotes by philosophers out there, you mentioned the Europeans and the Indians but after reading your examples, embarrassingly a quote from a fictional character from a kids show came to my mind.

Gees clearly indicated that they felt I (and anyone else) would stop visiting a family member who complained about their health too often.

Quote

Even if you insist that you would be deprived of the information and want to hear Matilda's complaints, I can assure you that it will only happen once or twice, because the third time you will stop visiting.

I find the statement cruel. That is not me playing semantics.The assertion is flawed. Gees cannot "assure" me regarding what I would do. On topic there is nothing true or right about someone feeling they most lie so not to annoy people with the truth.

##### Share on other sites

There are so many different types of truth - historic truth, personal experience, scientific truth, mathematical truth, ...

• Historic truth is whatever the winner says?
• Personal experience is subjective
• Religious truth is objective and absolute.
• Scientific truth should be objective as observations should be repeatable, but theories can only be proved wrong, probably.
• Mathematical truth would appear to the most solid, but there are theorems that are true or false but cannot be proven (Godel). Even the tools we use are imperfect. Years were spent axiomatising maths (e.g. Frege) only for Russell to produce his famous paradox. The axiom of Choice and Set Theory itself is not beyond criticism.

So this thread should be kept going for some time.

Edited by Shauno
##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shauno said:

There are so many different types of truth - historic truth, personal experience, scientific truth, mathematical truth, ...

Now one sees to what the substantivation of 'true' to 'truth' lead to. There are different kinds of facts, and the possible truth or falsity of propositions about them need different methods to be verified. But the 'truth' designates the same in all examples: the (claimed...) correspondence between propositions and the facts. Of course propositions can be presented as 'truths' when in fact they are not: the claimed truth of propositions can be a lie, can be premature, can be pure fantasy etc.

Just calling everything true what is claimed to be truths is bollocks. Depending on the domain of what the proposition is about, the ways of finding out what is true differ. Your listing is not a listing of truths, but a listing of truth claims. But claims are human products, so they can be wrong on all the possible ways that humans can make false claims.

• Propositions about personal experience can be honest. If I feel pain, I can be honest about it, even if somebody else does not feel pain. I can even be honest about a hallucination. If I see little green men coming through the wall, I can be honest reporting this. It would be something else if I claim that it is an objective truth, that little green men really are coming through the wall.
• Religious truths do not exist, because there are no facts corresponding to religious propositions, there is no methodologically justified way to verify them (one can be more nuanced here, but I let this stay for the moment)
• About Gödel: how can we know that a theorem is true, when we cannot prove it? Gödel's proof is about propositions generated on axioms and logical inference. It shows that there are propositions that can be made in the terms of the axiomatic system, but cannot be generated by the system. However we can see the truth of it by means outside the system.

Edited by Eise
##### Share on other sites

Tub;

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 3:46 AM, Tub said:

I think these two quotes sum it up for me: the reality of the elephant is absolute, impersonal and objective; the perception of the elephant is relative, personal and subjective.  I'm reminded of a brilliant 80's Irish sitcom ( Father Ted ) where Ted was explaining to dumb Dougal that cows are normally the same size but the very small cows were " far away  ".

Regarding the OP, my perception was that Gees , in this case, was using truth to mean honesty, when asking if truth can be trusted, so i would say that absolute, objective Truth/Reality can be trusted, ( if we can recognize It as such ),  whereas relative, subjective truth obviously can't be completely trusted. That seems pure and simple but, as Oscar Wilde said: " The truth is rarely pure and never simple ". As for sticking to unwavering, absolute honesty, i would say that a benign expediency, or even silence, is sometimes the better course to follow.

Are right and wrong related? I would say no - if something is right, it's just right; it isn't right because something else is wrong: 2 + 2 = 4 isn't right because 2 + 2 = 86* is wrong.

( * That is wrong, right ? ). .

I agree with the above and enjoy reading your posts because you add humor, but in a very on-topic way. I envy you that ability. But the point I want to discuss is your statement, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

So how do we find truth? Philosophy spends a lot of time and energy analyzing and studying different ways to learn what is true, and has lots of theories about truth and knowledge. We do this so that we can learn how to take something that is rarely pure and never simple, and break it down into something that has validity and reflects reality. I think that mixing right and wrong with truth, before discovering what is true, can invalidate the truth that is found. We can corrupt it while searching for it so it will never be found.

I study consciousness, so I study subjects that Science does not usually look at, including Religion. If anyone says that we can study consciousness without also studying Religion, they are either pulling your leg, or they are full of it. It is not possible to avoid Religion while working a comprehensive study of consciousness. Religion itself is a study of consciousness. In one of my threads, I referenced the Books of Law, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, from the Bible and was shocked by the reaction that I got. Some of the comments were beyond irrational. This surprised me because some branches of Science, such as Archeology, study the Bible and other old texts.

When archeologists study something like the Bible, they find references to land or living conditions and cultural standards, then compare that information to things that they find, and what we know about reality now. This enables them to piece together truths about the reality then. Comparing Common and Classic truths is a big part of their work.

Since I studied law, and had reason to investigate the Books of Law after studying law, I found that there is a lot more there than I realized. Everyone knows that the Bible says thou shalt not kill, but killing is more complex than that. There is accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, which are very different. No one expects text that is thousands of years old to explain these differences, but they would be wrong. The old laws define the difference between accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, and use the same concept to define these differences as we use today -- they used "intent". The more I read, the more I realized that the roots of our Common law, our moral law, in the various branches of law are deeply embedded in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Even more than that, I realized that the moral laws that we can not seem to get right, like abortion, the right to die, and dealing with the physically and/or mentally handicapped are not referenced in the Books of Law. I don't think it is coincidence that the issues we can not resolve are also not in the Books of Law.

So there is truth in the Books of Law. I began to wonder how much truth was related to the other subjects, such as the food laws and the sanitation laws as they regard disease. This was the subject that I brought up in that thread, and of course, I learned nothing -- except that people don't like Religion.

Some people say that the Bible is the word of "God" and everything in it is true; others say that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense made up to control lesser minds. I find both of these ideas invalid. So how does one separate out the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, from the rest? Following are the steps that I would take to start this separation. Please note that I have no idea whether or not you have a religious preference, or what it may be, but I have no intention to offend anyone. Just looking for truths.

1. First separate out Religion. When I read the word "God", I interpret that to mean "the unknown author". When I read sinner, evil, punishment, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is bad for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. When I read about heavenly rewards, goodness, innocence, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is good for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author.

2. If the Bible is not a religious book, then what is it? A history book, and history books are notorious for having a bias regarding history. This is because history books are written by people who wish to promote their own history, so they usually have a singular perspective, which must be considered. Also consider that the Bible is a book of books by various authors. These books were originally stories or scrolls, which were transcribed into books. And one must consider that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of scrolls in the basements of the Vatican, which may or may not be relevant to the history, so the books of the Bible have been preselected. One can not expect that this is a comprehensive history.

3. The book is also ancient, so time must be considered. They did not have Science as we do, and there was a lot that they could not know, but neither were they stupid. They could still observe their reality and see how cause and effect worked in their reality. They just sometimes attributed the effects to the wrong things, so when studying them, we need to look past what they attributed it to and instead focus on what caused their reaction in the first place to find any truth.

4. Culture shock is going to be an issue and must be considered. The people in the Old Testament lived in very harsh times compared to the times we live in. So when they say things like,  "Spare the rod and spoil the child." they are acknowledging that children need discipline, challenges, and consequences. We know that this is true because it is still true today, only instead of beating the kid, we ground them to their rooms. Anyone who quotes that phrase and actually thinks that beating a child is necessary, is just a person who is using this as an excuse to vent their anger on their child. Hitting a child is rarely necessary. There are other examples that can produce culture shock, so when reading old text like this, one has to adopt a sort of Continental attitude. Otherwise you will find yourself judging the culture instead of looking for truth.

So if one keeps the above rules in mind, we can find truths in the Bible. What we will be looking for are things that are also true now, or things that are commonly true in similar situations.

Gee

Strange;

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 8:57 AM, Strange said:

Paddy. Saint Patricia's day is 25th August.

You know, that didn't look right when I wrote it, but it is St. Patrick, not St. Padrick, so I couldn't figure it out. And I was in a hurry.

Thanks for the correction. I don't think I will make that mistake again. One down and a few thousand to go.

Gee

##### Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Gees said:

Tub;

I agree with the above and enjoy reading your posts because you add humor, but in a very on-topic way. I envy you that ability. But the point I want to discuss is your statement, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

So how do we find truth? Philosophy spends a lot of time and energy analyzing and studying different ways to learn what is true, and has lots of theories about truth and knowledge. We do this so that we can learn how to take something that is rarely pure and never simple, and break it down into something that has validity and reflects reality. I think that mixing right and wrong with truth, before discovering what is true, can invalidate the truth that is found. We can corrupt it while searching for it so it will never be found.

I study consciousness, so I study subjects that Science does not usually look at, including Religion. If anyone says that we can study consciousness without also studying Religion, they are either pulling your leg, or they are full of it. It is not possible to avoid Religion while working a comprehensive study of consciousness. Religion itself is a study of consciousness. In one of my threads, I referenced the Books of Law, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, from the Bible and was shocked by the reaction that I got. Some of the comments were beyond irrational. This surprised me because some branches of Science, such as Archeology, study the Bible and other old texts.

When archeologists study something like the Bible, they find references to land or living conditions and cultural standards, then compare that information to things that they find, and what we know about reality now. This enables them to piece together truths about the reality then. Comparing Common and Classic truths is a big part of their work.

Since I studied law, and had reason to investigate the Books of Law after studying law, I found that there is a lot more there than I realized. Everyone knows that the Bible says thou shalt not kill, but killing is more complex than that. There is accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, which are very different. No one expects text that is thousands of years old to explain these differences, but they would be wrong. The old laws define the difference between accidental death, manslaughter, and murder, and use the same concept to define these differences as we use today -- they used "intent". The more I read, the more I realized that the roots of our Common law, our moral law, in the various branches of law are deeply embedded in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Even more than that, I realized that the moral laws that we can not seem to get right, like abortion, the right to die, and dealing with the physically and/or mentally handicapped are not referenced in the Books of Law. I don't think it is coincidence that the issues we can not resolve are also not in the Books of Law.

So there is truth in the Books of Law. I began to wonder how much truth was related to the other subjects, such as the food laws and the sanitation laws as they regard disease. This was the subject that I brought up in that thread, and of course, I learned nothing -- except that people don't like Religion.

Some people say that the Bible is the word of "God" and everything in it is true; others say that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense made up to control lesser minds. I find both of these ideas invalid. So how does one separate out the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, from the rest? Following are the steps that I would take to start this separation. Please note that I have no idea whether or not you have a religious preference, or what it may be, but I have no intention to offend anyone. Just looking for truths.

1. First separate out Religion. When I read the word "God", I interpret that to mean "the unknown author". When I read sinner, evil, punishment, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is bad for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. When I read about heavenly rewards, goodness, innocence, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is good for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author.

2. If the Bible is not a religious book, then what is it? A history book, and history books are notorious for having a bias regarding history. This is because history books are written by people who wish to promote their own history, so they usually have a singular perspective, which must be considered. Also consider that the Bible is a book of books by various authors. These books were originally stories or scrolls, which were transcribed into books. And one must consider that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of scrolls in the basements of the Vatican, which may or may not be relevant to the history, so the books of the Bible have been preselected. One can not expect that this is a comprehensive history.

3. The book is also ancient, so time must be considered. They did not have Science as we do, and there was a lot that they could not know, but neither were they stupid. They could still observe their reality and see how cause and effect worked in their reality. They just sometimes attributed the effects to the wrong things, so when studying them, we need to look past what they attributed it to and instead focus on what caused their reaction in the first place to find any truth.

4. Culture shock is going to be an issue and must be considered. The people in the Old Testament lived in very harsh times compared to the times we live in. So when they say things like,  "Spare the rod and spoil the child." they are acknowledging that children need discipline, challenges, and consequences. We know that this is true because it is still true today, only instead of beating the kid, we ground them to their rooms. Anyone who quotes that phrase and actually thinks that beating a child is necessary, is just a person who is using this as an excuse to vent their anger on their child. Hitting a child is rarely necessary. There are other examples that can produce culture shock, so when reading old text like this, one has to adopt a sort of Continental attitude. Otherwise you will find yourself judging the culture instead of looking for truth.

So if one keeps the above rules in mind, we can find truths in the Bible. What we will be looking for are things that are also true now, or things that are commonly true in similar situations.

Gee

15

That's just a really long-winded way to say opinion is true, spoiler alert, it's not. Don't get me wrong, I have argued long and hard, in many threads, that Bibles contain wisdom and that wisdom is as valid today as it was then; but is wisdom true? A metaphor I've used before "All roads lead to Rome" by which I mean there is more than one path to wisdom, I could say my path is true and if I found wisdom it would be, but only for me, IOW whats true for me is not universal however accurate.

##### Share on other sites

Dear me, Gee, you really pack so much into your posts - and  always articulately and with so much scholarship; I envy you  that. ( Shall we get a room? Ha,ha.).  Anyway.........

2 hours ago, Gees said:

........ how do we find truth?

If only i knew, i would happily tell you but i can't give any glib, confident reply, though i would suggest, in all diffidence, that (the) Truth may actually be simpler than we think ,and perhaps it is our methods of approach that are too complex. Give me a little time to digest your post and gather my thoughts. ( If i can find any! ).

P.S. Thank you for your kind praise.

P.P.S. One thing i can do with complete confidence, ( being half-Irish ), is  sort out the Patty/Paddy affair: Patrick is the Anglicized spelling of the original Gaelic spelling which is Padraig, pronounced Podrick, so that's where Paddy with a " d " comes from; the female variation for Patricia is Padraigin , pronounced Podrageen.

##### Share on other sites

Tub;

16 hours ago, Tub said:

Dear me, Gee, you really pack so much into your posts - and  always articulately and with so much scholarship; I envy you  that. ( Shall we get a room? Ha,ha.).  Anyway.........

Scholarship? No. I think Dimreepr finally got one right. Too many beans makes a body windy. Or maybe it is from working with attorneys, who believe that anything that can be stated with 50 words can be better stated with 500 words. (You would think they got paid by the word)

In reality, my long posts are probably aggravating to some people, but when I have a good day, I post as much as I can. A few days ago, I was on Page 2 and everyone else was starting Page 5, so I'm catching up.

Quote

If only i knew, i would happily tell you but i can't give any glib, confident reply, though i would suggest, in all diffidence, that (the) Truth may actually be simpler than we think ,and perhaps it is our methods of approach that are too complex. Give me a little time to digest your post and gather my thoughts. ( If i can find any! ).

P.S. Thank you for your kind praise.

Truth is very simple; it is just a reflection of reality. Then the philosopher said, "What is real?" (chuckle)

You're welcome, but it's not really praise -- just an observation.

Quote

P.P.S. One thing i can do with complete confidence, ( being half-Irish ), is  sort out the Patty/Paddy affair: Patrick is the Anglicized spelling of the original Gaelic spelling which is Padraig, pronounced Podrick, so that's where Paddy with a " d " comes from; the female variation for Patricia is Padraigin , pronounced Podrageen.

Thank you for this interesting piece of information. I knew that "d" had to come from somewhere.

Gee

Eise:

Although I think your statements are limited as they mostly relate to Science, I agreed with everything that you said, until I read the following:

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 11:40 AM, Eise said:

Well, then they are wrong. Truth is not subjective. Beauty has a strong subjective side, morality less, but truth is definitely not subjective.

If truth is not subjective, then what is it? You already stated that "'Truth' is not out there.", so it can't be objective. What are lies?

Gee

Edited by Gees
spacing
##### Share on other sites

Dimreepr;

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:26 AM, dimreepr said:

Because it takes one to know one; I lie and have been lied to ergo people lie.

Maybe I should have been clearer. How do we know when a person is lying? Do we just assume everything is a lie, because we also lie? Do we just guess? And maybe pick and choose between truth and lies, selecting what we want to believe?

For myself, I think that measuring the statement against prior statements, against circumstances, and for consistency helps to determine when a person lies.

Quote

We don't measure we judge and as often as not we get it wrong, yes they can be uncovered but we still don't know which lies get through, so my statement stands.

Well, hopefully you are not a real Judge sitting on the Bench. I like it when the Judges weigh and measure the evidence before making a judgment.

Quote

Debt is a classic case in point, some keep it from a partner even to the point of suicide and some keep it from themselves putting correspondence into the bin unread, hiding behind the sofa when the bailiffs come knocking etc...

Because it makes them feel bad, which was my point.

Gee

Ten oz;

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:54 AM, Ten oz said:

The type of lies you described leads to people dying prematurely and or catching their families off guard when they pass suddenly. If you have had elderly relatives who have passed or are currently worried about elderly relatives who still live alone and you fear probably shouldn't you'd absolutely want to hear the truth. If Aunt Matilda was honest than maybe there is something that can be done to help her.

No. You are completely misconstruing the meaning and purpose of "white lies". Remember I stated that "white lies" are part of social truths, so what are social truths? We are a social specie, so we need interaction with others, but we are also private persons, so we need our privacy. In order to balance these needs, we have developed manners, social graces, little white lies, etc., that are used within societies to standardize levels of intimacy.

Little white lies enable us to be friendly on a superficial level, without delving into the personal -- without intruding. I don't want everyone to know everything about me, and I certainly do not want to know everything about everyone that I meet. Being elderly does not change this, as we still like our privacy. It is not about denying information, it is more about mind your own business.

There is nothing that prevents you from asking for a more intimate relationship. When Aunt Matilda says, "I'm fine." you can always tell her that you would really like to know how her surgery went and that you brought a foot bath and oils because you are going to give her a foot massage, because all ladies need to be pampered once in a while. She may accept, or she may decline thinking that she does not want that level of intimacy, or she may say that she would rather have her nails done if you have the time. If you care for her at all, you will accept her decision. If you don't accept her decision, you may be taken for a busybody.

I have had three different relatives offer to have me come and live with them because they know that I am disabled and housebound. I declined. I am happier at home and like my privacy. But when my 17 year old granddaughter started showing up a few times a week, I knew that something was wrong. I learned that she had lost her paternal grandmother and was worried that she was going to lose me too. So we worked out a deal. She visits for one or two hours on Wednesday, because that is the day that the garbage goes out, and I can't get it out. Sometimes we cook; I taught her to make guacamole, which we both love, she makes pumpkin bread for me because I can't stir the batter anymore. Sometimes I wash linen which she folds for me and puts away. Sometimes we just talk and I tell her stories about her mother or my mother, or just tell her family history. She tells me about friends, and school, this is her Senior year. She works part time and is graduating this year, so she really does not have a lot of time for me, but she seems to need this, so I will give it to her.

We can not stop death. The best we can hope to do is make memories.

Quote

I find the assertions that I'd visit an elderly relative less if they were honest about their state insensitive. I have relatives today that I use to seldom every visit but in lieu of learning of their daily challenges I visit for more often now out of concern. Perhaps you haven't lost many relatives close to you yet or are in a position to help care for elderly relatives but for me the last thing I want is for Aunt Matilda to feel obligated to lie for fear I will stop coming around if she doesn't. To be honest your response reads cruel.

You know perfectly well, that I don't know you personally and have no idea of whether or not you even have an "Aunt Matilda". The "you" was meant generally, not specifically, you.

When I was still a teen, I worked for about a year in a nursing home. In my early 30's, I worked with the mentally handicapped, so I do have an idea of what I am talking about. Most of the patients/clients had no visitors except at Christmas and maybe on their birthdays. Maybe 25% had the obligatory duty visit for an hour on Sunday afternoon, and some had occasional visitors off and on. The few who had regular visitation were the ones who were more active, more friendly, sometimes more fun. These are the few who were occasionally taken out to dinner, or to family gatherings, and had groups of visitors. These are the ones who hid their miseries.

So are their families cold, cruel, callous? No. Most people are good, but it is very difficult to be constantly presented with pain and misery when there is NOTHING that you can do about it. It makes one want to leap up, grab a sword, and fight off the evil, but some things can not be fought and must be tolerated. Learning to tolerate it often means becoming indifferent to it, as that is what survival requires of us. You can say that this is wrong until the end of time, but that will not change reality.

With my granddaughter, I am trying to balance between giving her some things to do for me, so she feels good, and not asking too much, so she won't feel responsible and obliged to continue when life gets busy. It is sometimes difficult, but I will keep trying because I love her.

Gee

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gees said:

Maybe I should have been clearer. How do we know when a person is lying?

Generally, we don't.

4 minutes ago, Gees said:

For myself, I think that measuring the statement against prior statements, against circumstances, and for consistency helps to determine when a person lies.

It's perfectly possible for two statements from the same person to both contradict and be truthful.

7 minutes ago, Gees said:

Well, hopefully you are not a real Judge sitting on the Bench. I like it when the Judges weigh and measure the evidence before making a judgment.

Judges don't do that, jurors do.

##### Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gees said:
On 3/19/2018 at 6:54 AM, Ten oz said:

No. You are completely misconstruing the meaning and purpose of "white lies". Remember I stated that "white lies" are part of social truths, so what are social truths?

Social "truths" as you describe are merely common attitudes or beliefs among specific social groups of people. Those groups could be small as a couple people or large as national political parties. Either way the word truth is being misused.

13 minutes ago, Gees said:

Little white lies enable us to be friendly on a superficial level, without delving into the personal -- without intruding. I don't want everyone to know everything about me, and I certainly do not want to know everything about everyone that I meet. Being elderly does not change this, as we still like our privacy. It is not about denying information, it is more about mind your own business.

This applies to you specifically and is not true among all people. This is just how you feel.

15 minutes ago, Gees said:

So are their families cold, cruel, callous? No. Most people are good, but it is very difficult to be constantly presented with pain and misery when there is NOTHING that you can do about it. It makes one want to leap up, grab a sword, and fight off the evil, but some things can not be fought and must be tolerated. Learning to tolerate it often means becoming indifferent to it, as that is what survival requires of us. You can say that this is wrong until the end of time, but that will not change reality.

With my granddaughter, I am trying to balance between giving her some things to do for me, so she feels good, and not asking too much, so she won't feel responsible and obliged to continue when life gets busy. It is sometimes difficult, but I will keep trying because I love her.

Again, this applies to you specifically. You are conflating what is true for you personally with would is true for others.

##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gees said:

Do we just assume everything is a lie, because we also lie?

I prefer to trust first and hope I'm not proven wrong.

14 minutes ago, Gees said:

Do we just guess?

Yes, unless the evidence is overwhelming (caught red-handed).

16 minutes ago, Gees said:

maybe pick and choose between truth and lies, selecting what we want to believe?

Well, that's what we do when we vote.

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Gees said:

Truth is very simple; it is just a reflection of reality.

That is very shorthand for what I am saying, but so far, yes.

21 hours ago, Gees said:

Then the philosopher said, "What is real?"

Of course. Reality has many forms, and the question is if the shorthand above suffices to describe everything in 'human reality'. In my post here I distinguished between different kinds of validity claims. To repeat, and enhance a little:

• validity claims about the outside world: true or false
• validity claims about morality: right or wrong
• validity claims about aesthetics: beautiful or ugly
• validity claims about myself: honest or dishonest

'Reflection of reality' for me only applies to the first. In all other cases the 'reality' can be changed by human discourse, because these 'realities' only exist in the human domain.

A problem with your ideas is that you mix all these kinds of validity claims. And then you even throw 'wisdom' in the mix, which does not belong to one of the single categories above, but is a product of all the valid claims above, together with openness and selfknowledge, especially of one's own limitations.

21 hours ago, Gees said:

If truth is not subjective, then what is it? You already stated that "'Truth' is not out there."

Yes of course: truth is a description of a semantic relationship: that propositions correspond to states of affairs that really are the case. So it is not 'in here' and it is not 'out there': it is the correct relationship between the two. A reflection, as you say yourself.

21 hours ago, Gees said:

I think your statements are limited as they mostly relate to Science

When it is about 'truth' (and not one of the other validity claims), science is the best example, as it is the systematic search for true propositions or theories. But it certainly also applies to simple statements, as I gave an example in my post: that it is true that it was drizzling in Switzerland at 17.03.2018 16:30 local time.

21 hours ago, Gees said:

What are lies?

Dishonest validity claims, i.e. you think that what you say is invalid, but you present it as valid to others.

Edited by Eise
##### Share on other sites

I cannot really say why other people do not trust truth, but I can offer my perspective on this.

Journalism is about truth, disseminating truth to the public. However, journalism distorts truth. Consider the issue of terrorist attacks. True, we experience terrorist attacks, yet I suspect we are more likely to get killed in a random car accident than a terrorist attack. New York City had about 150 pedestrian fatalities 2013, as per the NY Daily News. This is more than the average number of deaths from terrorist attacks, excluding 9/11. We never hear about the likelihood of a terror attack and we do not hear about the probability of being killed by a terror attack. But if you pay attention to the news, you could be forgiven for thinking the probability is higher than it really is. This is why I am cynical of journalistic truth.

Yes, I realize I am sourcing a newspaper to say I distrust journalism, primarily because I am too lazy to search deeper into the search engine results.

Edited by gwb
to update and correct
##### Share on other sites

On 21/03/2018 at 2:22 PM, Gees said:

Some people say that the Bible is the word of "God" and everything in it is true; others say that the Bible is a bunch of nonsense made up to control lesser minds. I find both of these ideas invalid. So how does one separate out the truth, which is rarely pure and never simple, from the rest? Following are the steps that I would take to start this separation. Please note that I have no idea whether or not you have a religious preference, or what it may be, but I have no intention to offend anyone. Just looking for truths.

1. First separate out Religion. When I read the word "God", I interpret that to mean "the unknown author". When I read sinner, evil, punishment, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is bad for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author. When I read about heavenly rewards, goodness, innocence, etc., I interpret that to mean that this is good for you/me/us in the opinion of the unknown author.

2. If the Bible is not a religious book, then what is it? A history book, and history books are notorious for having a bias regarding history. This is because history books are written by people who wish to promote their own history, so they usually have a singular perspective, which must be considered. Also consider that the Bible is a book of books by various authors. These books were originally stories or scrolls, which were transcribed into books. And one must consider that there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of scrolls in the basements of the Vatican, which may or may not be relevant to the history, so the books of the Bible have been preselected. One can not expect that this is a comprehensive history.

To be clear from the start, Gee, i am definitely not a Knipperdolling (  https://1word1day.livejournal.com/680265.html  ) but,like yourself, i haven't the slightest animosity towards anyone who peacefully follows any faith - whatever gets you through the night, as we say. Even though i don't follow any religious faith, i would still call myself a religious man, ( in the early sense of the word " religious " as derived from the Latin " religare ", which can mean " bind together " ), as i do believe that all Life is physically and consciously bound together: everything that exists is simply a different expression of the same essence - whatever that essence may be.

Do you not regard the Bible as a religious book at all?  I think it is , in one way, a religious book, in that it was, and is, an influence on the so-called revealed Abrahamic faiths, but i would never go as far as to call any book divine or sacred. I do agree that the Bible is a valid source for studying consciousness:  religions definitely affect and infect consciousness,veneficially as well as beneficially, so they can't be ignored.

If not taken literally, as others have said, there are singular truths to be found in the Bible, even if not the absolute, ineffable Truth, and these truths don't really need to have a religious  context to be true so "... separate out  Religion ", as you said. Among those truths i can see definite psychological lessons, couched in allegory and metaphor: The Garden of Eden. for example, is obviously not a real geographical place but a psychological condition ( a state of Truth, perhaps ) that i think is the genuine, initial state of the unconditioned, undivided conscious mind -  a state of the innocence/ignorance of childhood that is not separated from a unified one-ness with Nature, ( egoless, in fact ), which we lose as we rightly grow into adulthood, develop that ego and a separative self-identity and " fall " into the ways of the world around us.

In a sense, then, we " leave  the Garden "  when we put-off childhood and i think that what we call the search for Truth is really an attempt to get back into Eden. ( Do you know the chorus of Joni Mitchell's song " Woodstock "? She says as much in a scientific and psychological way. I don't think i can use the lyrics here without permission - you probably know more than i do about copyright laws ). Obviously we can't go back to our actual childhood, but i think it is possible to reconnect, as a wiser adult, with that first unconditioned conscious state of mind that existed before the brain did get conditioned through upbringing, education etc.

In that first pre-conditioned state, right and wrong, ( not necessarily equivalent to good and bad ), don't seem to impinge on consciousness until we " eat of the fruit ",  leave the Garden and gain that new knowledge which, in turn, gives birth to the universal, intrapersonal conflict between the perceived good and bad sides of the personality - a conflict that ideally culminates in the realisation of the metaphor of the Christian crucifixion and a return to the Garden. Witness to this is a famous Bible quote : " Unless you change and become like little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven ". The kingdom of Heaven being also a state of mind - not a place of reward for good behaviour after we die.

From the allegorical Garden we go, figuratively, through what Hermann Hesse called " the Hell of myself ",  inclusive of Purgatory and Limbo ( again, all states of mind encountered while alive, not after death ). At the end of this " Pilgrim's Progress " we arrive at the metaphorical, psychological crucifixion and death of the old  self ( " the son of Man " ) and the Phoenix-like resurrection of a new faith-free enlightened self ( " the son of God " ). I think this is the true meaning of a " virgin-birth ". Again, not after death. What is re-born is not a re-birth of the old consciousness but a totally new consciousness completely unconnected with   the old, dead consciousness.

I think i've been a bit incoherent with that last paragraph so i'll try to explain what i was trying to get at with this other cryptic ( paraphrased ) Biblical quote:  "He who loses himself shall find himself ". Which is still relevant today and can be clearly linked to Jung's  process of" Individuation " and Freud's model of the Psyche and ultimately , again, to that psychological death of the self "on the cross". If  you relate   Christ/ Good Thief/Bad Thief to  Ego/Superego/Id,   you may see  some sense in that - or not, of course. If there is a link, however,  it could have startling implications.

So, at last, " .... How do we find Truth? ", you ask. Well, when we speak of it, i think the search for Truth is the personal search for the truth of one's self, ( that Holy Grail ), and therefore the truth of all selves. It's a conscious undertaking, but none the less practical for that,and seems to me to be consciousness trying to fully understand itself ( even the brain studying the brain to understand the brain, which is quite strange ). The search itself, however, and as you implied, could be the corrupting factor in itself. ( A thief  dressed up as a policeman to catch a thief ). The search is the seeker and i think the seeker, ( the conditioned consciousness ), is the very obstacle that needs to be overcome as a pre-requisite to any progress.

I do think we can discover the truth of our psychological self, and that understanding of one's self is perhaps the first step we can take towards Truth and that " Peace that passeth understanding " - which, i think, is a liberation from our conditioned consciousness (  but not freedom of  it - we still need it for normal social interaction ). I don't  think  we can take  a scientific or philosophical approach to the problem; as much as i love and value both. i don't think Truth can be approached impartially, not through any kind of knowledge or preconceptions -  only through a clear observation of our conscious, conditioned self and not as an entity standing outside of consciousness  observing from a distance, but as consciousness observing itself: the actor in the wings is part of the play.

So, ( sigh ), Truth may be waiting " there " where it's always been when we stop searching for it. ( First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is ). The great Delphic maxim " Know thyself " is very apposite to that end. We can't follow any leader either, ( " Kill the Buddha ", said Buddha ), and i think what is really necessary is atemporary conscious-anonymity of a short-term self-forgetfulness  - we can't live all day with our head in the clouds - but, and it's a big but,  what if Truth can never be a personal possession?  Are we  even capable of being conscious of Truth, or can we only know what it isn't?  Who can say without straying into ultracrepidarianism**? ( What a lovely word).

In conclusion, then, i'd have to say that it is a case of knowing " how " to look, not " where " to look. It goes without saying , though, that i may be utterly bonkers and talking nonsense- i'm sure someone will tell me, but i promise i won't go for the Galileo Gambit: i'm well aware of my own infinite insignificance so,in all honesty, i must admit that however sincere i've tried to be, i have to accept that, perhaps , nothing i've said can be taken for the gospel truth.

##### Share on other sites

Tub;

Damn, I'm impressed. You are turning into a very interesting person. Obviously you have given some time and thought to this issue and done some studying. Although I have not come to the same conclusions that you have in some of your points, I don't dispute them either. My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs, but these differences are more additional, rather than adversarial.

Old metaphors are interesting to study, not only because there is truth in them, but because the best of them carry more than one truth. The Garden of Eden is one of these. As you stated there is an internal psychological truth, but there is also an evolutionary truth regarding consciousness, and a historic truth that documents the male and female battle of the sexes that changed the matriarchal priestess societies into the patriarchal priest societies.

I agree absolutely that it is knowing "how" to look, rather than "where" to look.

But I still owe some other people responses, so I will think about your post and respond in a few days.

I learned two new words today, Knipperdolling and ultracrepidarianism. (chuckle)

Gee

##### Share on other sites

Interesting...

"My perspectives on these points differ because my approach differs"

What does that tell you about any 'truths' gleaned from these differing approaches ?

## Create an account

Register a new account