Jump to content

What Is Truth?


tariki

Recommended Posts

 

so did it evolve differently and to what end is green an evolutionary advantage over red?

 

You are skirting around the philosophical point thormas. Regardless the degree of colour blindness each of us experiences, the object does not possess the colour we think it has. We are comparing reality versus perception. Our perception is a useful trait especially when it is working "properly".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to track blood in grass based on the reflective and adsorptive properties of photons is/was a useful trait don't you think thormas ... at least when it comes to the survival and reproduction of your progeny?

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Simply because if the 'equipment' is working properly, the colored is presented or perceived as red. Not a question of a majority, just one of equipment.

 

In this case it is not a matter of good or bad (people), it is merely recognition that some eyes need corrective lenses because of a flaw and some (like me) do not see all colors given a different flaw. Seems normal is working properly.

 

Regardless, this is not the real discussion of truth merely an aside.

 

I do think it is part of a real discussion of truth as I am trying to point out that it's people's perception that makes something 'true'. Why is seeing a colour a certain way called 'normal' or 'true' but for another who's equipment is configured differently it is seen a different way (normal for them) but called 'not true'.

 

I am certain if the majority of us saw colour as a colourblind person did we would call those colours 'true' and 'normal' and the minority who saw that colour differently (like the majority do currently) would be considered the ones with the 'flaw' of not being able to see colour 'properly'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to track blood in grass based on the reflective and adsorptive properties of photons is/was a useful trait don't you think thormas ... at least when it comes to the survival and reproduction of your progeny?

 

so far I haven't had to do that so any response would be theoretical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do think it is part of a real discussion of truth as I am trying to point out that it's people's perception that makes something 'true'. Why is seeing a colour a certain way called 'normal' or 'true' but for another who's equipment is configured differently it is seen a different way (normal for them) but called 'not true'.

 

I am certain if the majority of us saw colour as a colourblind person did we would call those colours 'true' and 'normal' and the minority who saw that colour differently (like the majority do currently) would be considered the ones with the 'flaw' of not being able to see colour 'properly'.

Again, for me this pertains to truth, so I don't disagree with your point. However, Truth (to distinguish from truth) is, as I suggested before, about a Way to be and I think there is only one Way to be and become Human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, for me this pertains to truth, so I don't disagree with your point. However, Truth (to distinguish from truth) is, as I suggested before, about a Way to be and I think there is only one Way to be and become Human.

 

Yet there are others who would just as firmly believe there is only one Way ro be and become Human, yet there Way may differ in major or minor ways to yours, and yet they too think thier Way is Truth.Their experience is Truth. Their results point to Truth. Yet it is different to your Truth - so what makes it Truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can distinguish between visual sensations and perceptions. Kinda simple, really.

 

Not really that simply at all. Whilst visual sensations are an entirely physiological process, the end result (the colour you think you see) is also reliant on your perception which includes a psychological component (past experiences, what you've been taught, how you understand the object, etc). How do you know what process you are calling on and/or to what degree when you think of that colour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of "one ways" and "only ways", for me the one way could be seen to be "freedom", or spontaneity, the wu-wei ​(effortlessness) of some eastern flavoured discourses. So the One Way is freedom of mind (perhaps a Christian would say being outside of any "law"), a freedom that can nevertheless be expressed in infinite ways in our world of becoming. For my own clarity of mind I referenced some words of Thomas Merton on the "Gift of Freedom" from his "New Seeds of Contemplation".........

 

 

The mere ability to choose between good and evil is the lowest limit of freedom, and the only thing that is free about it is the fact that we can still choose good.

To the extent that you are free to choose evil, you are not free. An evil choice destroys freedom.

We can never choose evil as evil: only as an apparent good. But when we decide to do something that seems to us to be good when it is not really so, we are doing something that we do not really want to do, and therefore we are not really free.

Perfect spiritual freedom is a total inability to make any evil choice. When everything you desire is truly good and every choice not only aspires to that good but attains it, then you are free because you do everything that you want, every act of your will ends in perfect fulfillment.

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

 

 

As Thormas has said, seeing red or green or whatnot is largely irrelevant to truth as lived freedom. ​A good expression of such a life is found in the poetry of Buson where he says that when he speaks well of himself and ill of another "the autumn wind chills his lips". As I see it, theism, non-theism, panentheism.........all such words fade away in freedom beyond any law. For me, when an objective Law is deemed to be the Truth, or some particular reading of a book, then look out for the Inquisitors.......or is it wingnuts?

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

 

 

Well said! Freedom is found in choosing correctly, choosing the Good, choosing Love (over self-centeredness). There is only one way to be Free, to (choose and act to) become and be truly Human - and it is a way understood by many of the great religions and philosophies (whether it is lived is a different matter). This freedom is also Truth, a lived Truth. And perhaps, playing off Buson we could say when we speak and act in love towards others, 'the gentle breeze of Spring kisses our lips.'

 

 

Yet there are others who would just as firmly believe there is only one Way ro be and become Human, yet there Way may differ in major or minor ways to yours, and yet they too think thier Way is Truth.Their experience is Truth. Their results point to Truth. Yet it is different to your Truth - so what makes it Truth?

 

To differ in 'minor' ways is not the issue, but if another differs in the major way -that choosing only Love leads to freedom, and thus that this Truth must be lived - while they are entitled to their opinion, they have missed the mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom therefore does not consist in an equal balance between good and evil choices but in the perfect love and acceptance of what is really good and the perfect hatred and rejection of what is evil, so that everything you do is good and makes you happy, and you refuse and deny and ignore every possibility that might lead to unhappiness and self-deception and grief. Only the man who has rejected all evil so completely that he is unable to desire it at all, is truly free. God, in whom there is absolutely no shadow or possibility of evil or of sin, is infinitely free. In fact, he is Freedom.

 

 

Tariki

Here we wander awfully close to free will ... how do we choose anything (never mind between illusory good and evil)? Regarding acceptance ... generally I am accepting of something or not. I suppose I can find my self choosing to go through the motions of acceptance I don't seem to have much freedom here. Perfect love? In the eye of the beholder?

 

I reject the concept of evil and as such can do no evil. But this is true for good too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

so far I haven't had to do that so any response would be theoretical

 

Actually any response you give is a result of cause and effect. We put them in boxes ... yours is theoretical, and for me I might put yours into avoidance. ( :) )

 

Did you see the non existent yellow? (note I am not saying photons that give a yellow perception don't exist ... just that they don't exist on your monitor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tariki

Here we wander awfully close to free will ... how do we choose anything (never mind between illusory good and evil)? Regarding acceptance ... generally I am accepting of something or not. I suppose I can find my self choosing to go through the motions of acceptance I don't seem to have much freedom here. Perfect love? In the eye of the beholder?

 

I reject the concept of evil and as such can do no evil. But this is true for good too.

 

Not sure how your rejection of evil would play with all those who have suffered from natural or man made evil over the history of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually any response you give is a result of cause and effect. We put them in boxes ... yours is theoretical, and for me I might put yours into avoidance. ( :) )

 

Did you see the non existent yellow? (note I am not saying photons that give a yellow perception don't exist ... just that they don't exist on your monitor).

As I mentioned Rom, colors were not the important part of the discussion, so it has been a bit lighthearted and, perhaps, avoidance - as it does not really pertain to Truth.

 

And, I couldn't see it because it was non existent. Although if I could, I would say pixel less Yellow is my favorite color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure how your rejection of evil would play with all those who have suffered from natural or man made evil over the history of man.

 

Ah well I will let all those that have suffered speak for themselves. But as I am talking to you, you can explain to me what makes some patterns of atoms (etc.) evil and others not. Hint - it is your perception that has been informed by your environmental programming.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned Rom, colors were not the important part of the discussion, so it has been a bit lighthearted and, perhaps, avoidance - as it does not really pertain to Truth.

 

And, I couldn't see it because it was non existent. Although if I could, I would say pixel less Yellow is my favorite color.

 

While I believe in truth or The Truth© even; I believe I have limited access and the access I have is perhaps misleading. Colour and our perception of it is a classical example of how limited our perception is and how it can be illusory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah well I will let all those that have suffered speak for themselves. But as I am talking to you, you can explain to me what makes some patterns of atoms (etc.) evil and others not. Hint - it is your perception that has been informed by your environmental programming.

 

The first part of your response is a bit too cavalier for a serious response.

 

As for the rest:I have no problem acknowledging the 'programming' throughout the evolutionary process but it is that programming that keep us safe from................things that can ruin our day, cripple us, kill those we love and on and on. Simply, people refer to these and other such 'things or occurrences' as natural evils. And if it was programming that put the fight or flight into the European response to Hitler, here we have an example of what people call man-made evil. The perception matched the reality as Hitler's atoms were out to get others (kill, conquer, dominate, extinguish), some fled, others fought and that pile of atoms laid itself to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While I believe in truth or The Truth© even; I believe I have limited access and the access I have is perhaps misleading. Colour and our perception of it is a classical example of how limited our perception is and how it can be illusory.

I'll go with Yellow, that way I know the light will soon turn Red and I won't harm or kill others. I'll take the perception, recognize the color as indicating something real, live another day, access the Truth and see its Reality in experience.

 

While others will still be sitting in traffic pondering the pixels, unable to move forward for fear they are illusory or might be misleading :+}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The first part of your response is a bit too cavalier for a serious response.

 

As for the rest:I have no problem acknowledging the 'programming' throughout the evolutionary process but it is that programming that keep us safe from................things that can ruin our day, cripple us, kill those we love and on and on. Simply, people refer to these and other such 'things or occurrences' as natural evils. And if it was programming that put the fight or flight into the European response to Hitler, here we have an example of what people call man-made evil. The perception matched the reality as Hitler's atoms were out to get others (kill, conquer, dominate, extinguish), some fled, others fought and that pile of atoms laid itself to rest.

 

OK ... for the first part ... next month our son of sixteen years died ten years ago from a debilitating form of epilepsy ... a seizure we did not catch in time. It never occurred once to me to think of it as evil. Heart wrenching at times yes; but evil no ... that is a particularly Christian concoction.

 

Now how is one pattern of atoms more evil than another?

 

I'll go with Yellow, that way I know the light will soon turn Red and I won't harm or kill others. I'll take the perception, recognize the color as indicating something real, live another day, access the Truth and see its Reality in experience.

 

While others will still be sitting in traffic pondering the pixels, unable to move forward for fear they are illusory or might be misleading

 

 

Fine, this is a pragmatic view point. But it continues the place itself in my avoidance box. Confounds pragmatism with the truth. But that is OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK ... for the first part ... next month our son of sixteen years died ten years ago from a debilitating form of epilepsy ... a seizure we did not catch in time. It never occurred once to me to think of it as evil. Heart wrenching at times yes; but evil no ... that is a particularly Christian concoction.

 

Now how is one pattern of atoms more evil than another?

 

 

Fine, this is a pragmatic view point. But it continues the place itself in my avoidance box. Confounds pragmatism with the truth. But that is OK.

 

It is not a Christian concoction, nor is such human suffering tied to demonic powers: it is simply a recognition that natural occurrences or man-made actions (be it intentional or negligent) can and do cause harm, sometimes great or even catastrophic harm to humanity (and the world). And such natural suffering (is)can be 'happenstance' but it is still not good: it causes harm to people. And some call such natural occurrences, evil. And many definitely call the suffering and harm which is the result of intentional man-made actions, evil as they use the same term for the men and women who are its causes.

 

Not all 'patterns of atoms' cause such evil.

 

as for your last sentence, you will have to try again.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really that simply at all. Whilst visual sensations are an entirely physiological process, the end result (the colour you think you see) is also reliant on your perception which includes a psychological component (past experiences, what you've been taught, how you understand the object, etc). How do you know what process you are calling on and/or to what degree when you think of that colour?

 

Perceptual psychology has been an active academic field for decades. Sensation and perception are both well understood, but I am not an expert in either. I lectured on it at Tulane at the introductory level in the seventies, but my field was child development.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tariki

Here we wander awfully close to free will ... how do we choose anything (never mind between illusory good and evil)? Regarding acceptance ... generally I am accepting of something or not. I suppose I can find my self choosing to go through the motions of acceptance I don't seem to have much freedom here. Perfect love? In the eye of the beholder?

 

I reject the concept of evil and as such can do no evil. But this is true for good too.

"Just take what you need and leave the rest" Merton's words gave me clarity in the context of "one ways", "only ways" and "truth/Truth" as being freedom of mind. I was about to emphasise in a response to Thormas - where he said "well said" to me - that as far as "Christian speak" goes I'm more into being chosen than in chosing, in being accepted just as I am, than in accepting.

 

It does get complicated given my own non-theistic position.

 

However, must go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service