truth is an entity.

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
hello all

truth is an entity. [and has a universal language]

i have come to think there is a universal language innate in all things, yet it is impossible to say what it is, it has no direct linguistic features, pattern nor alphabet.

to get some idea of what i mean, imagine the ‘picture language’ that autistic geniuses use to solve incredible complex mathematical equations. there is an inner genius in all things in some manner, and we can link with that. take for instance an experiment on tv the other day; there is this chap called derren brown who does experiment on tv to show our hidden assets. in one such experiment he got an ordinary man to look through an entire library of books ~ literally just look at them page by page without reading them. the chap was then asked to take part in a professional quiz after being taught techniques for retrieving knowledge that he hadent actually learned in the normal way, even though he didn’t ‘know’ most of the answers he was able to visualise the meanings of all those books and he came joint first in the test. he done this simply by allowing images to arise in his mind and they in turn were interpreted as the desired answer.

so the inner genius reads by a language that is quicker than ordinary linguistic thought! one reads the bible as words of truth yet if god was to speak don’t you think god would do the same? a skeptic may say that a calculator is quicker than any genius at performing mathematical calculations, yet it is only working with a very limited base, we work with reality in all its vastness. the universal language then is simply the fastest way of knowing and expressing that knowledge in context to the whole of reality. to me it is kinda logical that the hub of the ‘universe’ would be built on a universal language of some kind, however by its very nature this language cannot be specific to any given thing as it must be relative to both individual aspects and the whole.

i have found that you can have completely contrasting views that are a contradiction in every way, yet both are equally true and false. this is because ‘the truth’ is both in them and beyond them in all cases.
i don’t think ‘nothing’ and ‘things’ and ‘everything’ are entirely valid concepts, none of them can be defined can they. if we define nothing, then it is a thing, if we don’t then it doesn’t exist. equally so we cannot state what any absolute ‘thing’ is, nothing has edges not in meaning nor in form.

therefore the truth is an entity, it can have no specific form or nature yet it is always truth. when we look at the universe we see that it is entirely built upon this basis; everything belongs to something else and nothing is absolute. that though does not make the whole thing moot in my mind, as an anarchist it just makes the truth into something far more wonderful and free than i could possibly hope for.


:)
 
therefore the truth is an entity, it can have no specific form or nature yet it is always truth. when we look at the universe we see that it is entirely built upon this basis; everything belongs to something else and nothing is absolute.
Actually every truth is absolute. Identifying and describing 'truth' is the issue of language.

that though does not make the whole thing moot in my mind, as an anarchist it just makes the truth into something far more wonderful and free than i could possibly hope for.

and the 'The truth will set you free'......

the entity that allows the truth to exist within each person is 'integrity.'

We are either absolute in representing truth or we are not! Just the same we are either purely honorable in pursuing the truth, or we are not!

The truth lives in absolution!
 
hi bish

Actually every truth is absolute.

how so? give me an example of truth that isn’t relative, comparative and/or subjective.

the entity that allows the truth to exist within each person is ‘integrity.’

i agree absolutely. ..or at least for it to flow unhindered.

We are either absolute in representing truth or we are not! Just the same we are either purely honorable in pursuing the truth, or we are not!

we cannot represent truth, only truth can represent itself [like only god can be god kinda thing] and even then it has no form or specific nature to do so. honour doesn’t always have anything to do with it, we don’t even have to pursue it but can just happen upon it. it is like this; a wise man can go and find truth but then he writes it down and then anyone can know it.

i would think that truth is the definitive as the anti-absolute!
 
Blah blah blah, truth...blah blah blah....

I agree Z, truth is in the innate nature of things.

First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?

Hannibal Lecter

Chris
 
Please God help me to find the Truth. And God save me from those that have found it.

- The Philosopher's Prayer.



The Lord is my external-internal integrative mechanism,
I shall not be deprived of gratification for my viscerogenic hungers or my need-dispositions.
He motivates me to orient myself toward a non-social object with affective significance.
He positions me in a non-decisional situation.
He maximises my adjustment.
Although I entertain masochistic and self-destructive Id impulses,
I will maintain contact with reality, for my Superego is dominant.
His analysis and tranquilisers, they comfort me.
He assists in the resolution of my internal conflicts despite my Oedipal problem and psychopathic compulsions.
He promotes my group identification.
My personality is totally integrated.
Surely my prestige and status shall be enhanced as a direct function of time,
And I shall remain sociologically, psychologically and economically secure forever.

- The Shrink's Psalm.

s.


 
how so? give me an example of truth that isn’t relative, comparative and/or subjective.
Words are the creation of mankind.

A universal truth, unequivocally a fact!

we cannot represent truth, only truth can represent itself
How can you say that? The sky is purple!

Did the sky represent itself? Just as God does not give words either.


and even then it has no form or specific nature to do so.
Either a person is telling the truth or they are not. The nature is to reflect what is true; but only of the 'self' (a conscious choice) can impose a false.

Meaning only a 'consciousness' can create a fib to even exist as nothing in existence can lie such to deciet by words; by choice.


honour doesn’t always have anything to do with it,
Intgrity does too! Honor and honesty have a huuuuuggggeeee impact on the truth.

we don’t even have to pursue it but can just happen upon it.
That is untrue as it is like saying a 17 years can get his diploma while walking to school.

it is like this; a wise man can go and find truth but then he writes it down and then anyone can know it.
that's what darwin did and still a huge part of the globe suggests his work, his representation of the natural selection is incorrect.

So it is 'them' who see knowledge, to recognize it, and then if 'they' have doubts; do the homeword before discounting it based on someone else's opinion. The only reason this is such of importance is that in so many opinions there are so many compounded errors. i.e... 'heat'... look up what heat is...


i would think that truth is the definitive as the anti-absolute!

can't see any logic thereof... as it then returns to 'chaos' or the heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and mathematically both are dead as I myself have done the homework to find out, with no need of anyone else's opinion.

Again it is within 'integrity' that any have the ability to represent what is true; either you've done the homework and know what is true or you haven't.


What cracks me up is that each item represented from this position of 'i' can be researched and found true simply by people wanting to do the homework.

Most wish to accept what others share rather than commit.

So often what someone defines as true is simply a representation of a collection of errors...... i.e... dark matter/energy

Or a man 'walked on water'
 
That is untrue as it is like saying a 17 years can get his diploma while walking to school.
no but an infinite amount of monkeys with typewriters can write the entire works of Shakespear :p. the truth you are describing is one level of ‘naked truth’, the sky does describe itself, however it doesn’t deascribe itself in a billion other parallel universes or over all-time etc etc. the actual naked truth is indescribable.
russel and frege have had a few things to say about the first kind of truth.
here’s an example by frege...

Now it would be futile to employ a definition in order to make it clearer what is to be understood by ‘true’. If, for example, we wished to say ‘an idea is true if it agrees with reality’ nothing would have been achieved, since in order to apply this definition we should have to decide whether some idea or other did agree with reality. Thus we should have to presuppose the very thing that is being defined. The same would hold of any definition of the form ‘A is true if and only if it has such-and-such properties or stands in such-and-such a relation to such-and-such a thing’. In each case in hand it would always come back to the question whether it is true that A has such-and-such properties, or stands in such-and-such a relation to such-and-such a thing. Truth is obviously something so primitive and simple that it is not possible to reduce it to anything still simpler. Consequently we have no alternative but to bring out the peculiarity of our predicate by comparing it with others. What, in the first place, distinguishes it from all other predicates is that predicating it is always included in predicating anything whatever."

can’t see any logic thereof.


can you observe a particle to an absolute degree ~ no it would take more energy than is in the universe to do that. so the inner physical reality does not present itself as a knowable thing.
Again it is within ‘integrity’ that any have the ability to represent what is true
i see what you say, yet integrity is a somewhat human trait, a machine or computer can define outer truths and integrity has nothing to do with it. not that i disagree with what you are saying, its just that i am aiming at the ultimate level of truth not ordinary facts etc.
So often what someone defines as true is simply a representation of a collection of errors...... i.e... dark matter/energy
hahaha, yes i’ll go with you there although only on an intuitive instinct rather than homework ~ it is just not my field.
 
no but an infinite amount of monkeys with typewriters can write the entire works of Shakespear :p.
but ever notice all the sheep going to church, giving money, power and control back to religious nuts (i.e. ted haggard, the pope)

the truth you are describing is one level of ‘naked truth’, the sky does describe itself,
Okey dokey

however it doesn’t deascribe itself in a billion other parallel universes or over all-time etc etc. the actual naked truth is indescribable.
Incorrect as it is like saying Love is by god or that a radio recieves a signal by magic.....

can you observe a particle to an absolute degree ~
can you share the truth with any absolute degree?

i see what you say, yet integrity is a somewhat human trait, a machine or computer can define outer truths and integrity has nothing to do with it. not that i disagree with what you are saying, its just that i am aiming at the ultimate level of truth not ordinary facts etc.
Integrity is what allows a man to realize how ignorant he is. The bible or theology is not an ordinary fact nor represent absolute truth as the words are created by mankind....

now to be real technical; mathematics are universal, where the description can be defined without error and equal to all mankind

Is the model on line? No as that math will not be published until after the war.

but a set of wisdom is pure to all
To live in accordance with the essence of things is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”
No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”
Socrates
And not knowing the order of the universe constitutes a serious handicap in living a moral life!

or how about

When words are both true and kind, they can change our world. Conveying knowledge is the duty of each person and each generation. Words have the power to both destroy and heel. To ground knowledge into words of truth and physical application then to comprehend what is truly occurring is enlightening to understanding.
 
"To live in accordance with the essence of things is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality."

i see where you are coming from now, i couldnt agree more. there certainly seams to be something in nature by which all things flow and find balance, the more i look the wiser it is.
so this truth is a kind of communication beyond words, it is moral as it is natural to be so, all evil is unnatural and doesnt flow with the ways.

an interesting perspective!

at another forum we are turning science on its head with this one, basically saying that physics is metaphoric, the true reality is indescriptive.
 
i see where you are coming from now, i couldnt agree more. there certainly seams to be something in nature by which all things flow and find balance, the more i look the wiser it is.
so this truth is a kind of communication beyond words, it is moral as it is natural to be so, all evil is unnatural and doesnt flow with the ways.

an interesting perspective!
Think in the lines of 'the truth lives in absolution'

so in reality; existence only operates ONE way.

and we throughout time have language that the truth has come to 'evolve' within.

the final chapter is; the revealing. And since the basis changing all areas of logic (paradigm shift) then from math, science to philosophy to theologies, there is a whole new frontier now to be opened based on one change; light (em upon mass) is energy.

at another forum we are turning science on its head with this one, basically saying that physics is metaphoric, the true reality is indescriptive.
And if Einstein would have reworked 'entanglement' with today's experemental evidence, then all this doubt would have been overwith by now but (un)fortunately you are dealing with the nut case who did but will not publish the math.

that is what is so strange; math is the universal language but that math also has the power to create, correct and destroy.

So unlike Einstein who published before mankind was responsible; perhaps the selfless approach means restraint.

People either want the truth or they don't.

At least you evolved with a new idea of thinking. Now share it with everyone you know.

When people (the younger generation) begin to take hold and begin to convey then a release can be made as nay will corporations govern mankind before this 'i' will leave the closet.
 
Think in the lines of ‘the truth lives in absolution’

do you mean that in the ordinary definition:
absolution:
noun: the act of absolving or remitting; formal redemption as pronounced by a priest in the sacrament of penance
noun: the condition of being formally forgiven by a priest in the sacrament of penance

i don’t see what this has to do with it, how does truth reside in confession and forgiveness? these are relative human traits. i see confession as pointless as is forgiveness, one would be confessing for being born innocent then being thrust into a harsh environment to which we should forgive individuals who make it worse and don’t change weather we forgive them or not.

sorry but if your god created this world then we are not to blame for it.
secondly, light is not the naked truth. light is a property where truth/reality is universal. i am not light even if my composition ‘may’ include light, yet i am as you are; truth.

light cannot be reality, but we can say that the meaning ‘truth’ can be the same as the meaning ‘reality’, it cannot be anything else though.

for an in-depth view of this see here;
truth is an entity. [and has a universal language] - Total War Center Forums

it would be interesting to see what some of the science guys think of your ideas about light! expect a hard ride though. :)
 
do you mean that in the ordinary definition:
absolution:
noun: the act of absolving or remitting; formal redemption as pronounced by a priest in the sacrament of penance
noun: the condition of being formally forgiven by a priest in the sacrament of penance

i don’t see what this has to do with it, how does truth reside in confession and forgiveness?
The word 'absolute' is the basis of absolution.

perfect or complete or pure; "absolute loyalty"; "absolute silence"; "absolute truth"; "absolute alcohol"
complete and without restriction or qualification; sometimes used informally as intensifiers; "absolute freedom"; "an absolute dimwit"; "a downright lie"; "out-and-out mayhem"; "an out-and-out lie"; "a rank outsider"; "many right-down vices"; "got the job through sheer persistence"; "sheer ...
not limited by law; "an absolute monarch"
expressing finality with no implication of possible change; "an absolute guarantee to respect the nation's authority"; "inability to make a conclusive refusal"
without conditions or limitations; "a total ban"
something that is conceived to be absolute; something that does not depends on anything else and is beyond human control; "no mortal being can influence the absolute"
not capable of being violated or infringed; "infrangible human rights"
light cannot be reality, but we can say that the meaning ‘truth’ can be the same as the meaning ‘reality’, it cannot be anything else though.

absolution and the definition you are performing is mirrored in theology.

Whereas in reality the 'truth' of existence is absolute within integrity


Hey.... I see truth is an entity and to misrepresent a word based on a bad definition is fibbing. Such the same as suggest magic as an answer; fibbing is fibbing as in reality

'the truth lives in absolution'


it would be interesting to see what some of the science guys think of your ideas about light! expect a hard ride though. :)

Suggesting Newtons second law is foolish and that plancks constant is incorrect are one of the same.

arXiv.org Search

Not if you are current in learning arXiv.org Search

They world community is just now warming up but this is all old news.

SInce 1982, when PNC (photo neuron conduction) was presented by a 16 year old kid that shared the interactions of neuron in the brain where by light (em) there has been a whole world of change occurring and it seems maybe you are just not aware of the knowledge 'evolving.'

In 1986 the first item suggested 'that light can be held upon mass' was proven... then in Bell labs, entanglement was a proven entity of energy.

Point is the paradigm shift is that close!

If you want the truth; ask questions. If you want a nobel; do homework and the answers are a key-pad away.
 
thanks for all that info bish, perhaps i was reading what you meant wrong, its the religious connotations i am weary of ~ but i shall contemplate on the idea.
i have always shied away from absolutes, as nature seams to as well.

thank you! :)
 
thanks for all that info bish, perhaps i was reading what you meant wrong, its the religious connotations i am weary of ~ but i shall contemplate on the idea.
i have always shied away from absolutes, as nature seams to as well.

thank you! :)

Peace to you... as to remain in doubt is not that bad but use your heart and conscious ability to understand as your guide. Let the truth exist!

It has been the guise of many of faith to remain or represent that we can never know, which is false as even in the religions each suggests a day would come when the children will have 'knowledge upon their head' meaning a day would come when the evolution of knowledge reaches its pinnacle...

otherwise why do any of us learn in the first place; there is an end resolve.

We the people ... will be equal! This you can have faith in!

As the covenant to mankind has always been; Understanding!

See any religion and find this universal truth!
 
Hello all. I hope I don't seem presumptuous as a first time poster to adress such an issue, but it is one that I have an interest in and would like to share, not my own thoughts on, but the thoughts of those who have inspired me.

My essential understanding of the debate in this topic is that it is one that has riven philosophy during it's history: Does truth consist of corespondence to reality, or of the constructions of those who claim to have truth. In other words objectivism vs. relitivism.

To my mind this debate asks the wrong question. And this disilusionment with the thrust of this debate will be the thrust of my post. It seems to me that the objectivism/relitivism debate began to be called to a close in the late 19th century, primarily by two figures, Kiekegaard and Neitzche (the early Existentialists), and soon after by such American Pragmatists as Dewey and James. They served to move philosophical discourse away from the old question 'what is truth?' to the new question 'how can we get to truths?', and by extention 'how do humans construct truths?'

Even more important, a deep mistrust of the word 'truth' began to arise. These 'new' philosophers began to regard truth as an idea that other people used which was worthy of study, not something they were striving towards. To use a much later term, they were starting to construct the first self-conscious 'discourses'.

It took a little while for 'progressive' philosophers to actually define what their mission was if it was not to engage in the persuit of 'truth', and in the meantime increasing weak scientistic versions of truth were proposed, most noticeably Falsificationism.

Two people seem to me to have been vital in giving new life to the redefinition of ideas on how human thought operates from a philisophical point of view, these being Foucault and Witgenstein. Happily, their most influential ideas in this field can be summed up in one concept for each of them; for Foucault 'discources' and for Witgenstein 'language games'.

Discourses are the semi-discreet areas of human liguistic interaction that are concerned with producing truths (or, at least, authoratative opinions). They do not have a single focus, and are not concerned with a single question. They are instead a comunity of enquirers, who's view of the world is effected by each other, and who communicate with each other in what they think of as the discourse. Examples of discourses include Geography, Catholocism, Quatum Mechanics, Physics, Queer Theory, Sociology and so on. As you can see discourses overlap, and there can be discourse within discourses.

Witgenstein's idea of language games bears a distict resemblance to Foucault's idea of discourses. Witgenstein, later in his career, became deeply disillusioned with philosophy, deciding that it had no right to sit upon a pedestal discussing, for example, the qualifications of truth. If it had a role, he said, it was to describe how people played 'language games'. Language games are the discreet types of communication that people use in order to convey their thoughts on a particular subject. What a language game is is more dependent on the people who are playing it (though its is of course necessarily constructed in the context of a society) than a discourse, which is per se the content of the comunication between a group of individuals. The nature of a language game is determined by the understanding of the people involved. The emphasis is very much on particular modes of comunication, symbology and thought. The distinctions between language games are so simple as be be easily missed. For example, what a pysicist means by 'red' is very different than what an artist means by the same word (or at least people playing these language games); one is to do with light frequencies, the other is to do with the aesthetic properties of certain artworks or pigments.

The implications of Foucault's and Witgenstein's works is that whilst the idea of absolute truth, and for that truth as a single reified entity, is not helpful, the enquiry into why humans think as they do extremely fruitful.

It is this unstated understanding, i.e. that we should be concerend with questions that yeild results, not necesarily those our forebears posed, that would underpin the next generation of important philosophers who inquired into the 'truth' question.

Essentially these were american neo-pragmatists and people heavily influenced by the pragmatist tradition as well as the linguistic analytical tradition heavily influenced by the above and Witgenstein. These people carried on from the project set out for them by the people I talked about above. Whilst their work is facinating, you can guess for yourselves the general direction of enquiry major luminaries such as Quine, Davidson, Searle and Rorty went in from inference.

Essentially, what I am trying to say is this: The question 'is truth obective or subjective' is not worth spending time on, instead try to understand why people believe what they do, and what would be useful/make sense for you to believe yourself.

Whilst this idea is unfortunate in as much as it denies humans the possibility of omnipotence in any form (even the limited form offered by relitivists), it does allow exciting possibilities for furthering understanding that literally millenia of debate on the question of the nature of truth never did.
 
truth is usualy a compromise, in fact what diferentiates truth from lie is mostly the intention
a truth is reported information about reality, made with the honest intention of comunicating the real actual state of things
the real and actual state of things can never be comunicated in a completely correct way as it is not possible to completely know reality
so the reported or discovered truth is set against human experience, observable reality and what is belived to be known of it, and is acepted if it is compatible

so there can be no apsolute truth, and no universal truth, no higher truth and no fundamental or devine truth

it is a practical concept, and it is extremly useful
 
truth like the self cannot indeed be ‘known’ ~ at least in perceptive terms, to perceive we take a step out from the inner self to a secondary perspective. both the self and truth then belong to the same primary nature which perception emanates from! i suppose i would call that gnosis or inner knowledge, but ‘inner’ due to its primacy rather than something mystical.

its dimension is infinity, everything else are expressions of that with infinite being, mind and intellect being shared equally by all. this is what ‘you’ are, an entity which utilises what is eternally there. reality itself must also be apportioned equally, what one refers to as subjective is just another kind of objective, a thought and its information is as real as principles, which shape energy into existence [the abstract].


well thats my theory anyway. :D thanks guys for your most interesting comments.
 
Back
Top