There is no such thing as 'truth'!

[Jake Danger]

There is no such thing as 'truth'! True or false?

[David Hausladen]

I like the way you phrased the question: if you answer "true", you're contradicting yourself.

[David Hausladen]

My serious answer would be that there are few, if any, absolute truths. Instead, different persons, situations, cultures can create for themselves relative truths, and they will generally see those truths verified thanks to their expectation (by the Law of Attraction, or if you don't accept that as true then the brain's reticular activating system). So if you believe strongly that man has never landed on the moon, then you will find plenty of evidence for that to be "true."

[fourthdan]

I agree - it isn't as simple.
"the sun rises in the east" - True or false?
it's an absolute truth (depending on you being on planet earth and you agree that East is the direction opposite of west, etc.)

"Al's bakery makes the best cupcakes" - True or false?
what's true to me may not be true to you. Just like "there is a god" or "the universe is limitless".

Sometimes what we believe is absolute truth, is unbeliveably broken - "the earth is flat" "the fastest velocity achievable is the speed of light" "the atom is the smallest divisible unit of matter".... all were the best offerings of the wisest on earth, untill proven otherwise.

the question really is - "What is truth?" or specifically "What is the truth about.... "

[DKSprocket]

You can construct "truths" in a abstract system such as logic or mathematics. For example: A->B, B->C => A->C or 2+2=4. But those truths rely on a bunch of definitions and assumptions about the abstract system.

I would agree that you can't define (or point out) absolute truths in the physical world - at least not if you use the conventional scientific model of the world.

Whether or not absolute truths exists in the spiritual/divine domain is an interesting question.

Rasmus

[Andrew Brunelle]

I think truth is more subjective, but in the real world, there really is no truth except the one we all create for ourselves. If you believe that the past is only an illusion, then there definitely is no truth because in the present moment, the only truth is what is around you. I really don't think there's much truth out there. "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

[fourthdan]

absolute Truths may exist in the spiritual domain... it's proofs for them in our domain that's even more interesting question

[Argenberg]

Yes, there is no such thing as truth, there are only points of view that are often mistaken for truths.

Yet there is such a thing as Truth.

This thing cannot be comprehend and cannot be viewed and analyzed in contrast to simple truths, but it can be felt.

This thing also cannot be questioned and discussed, even on a forum like this, because it can only be felt personally

Those who felt it can discuss it silently together - actually they have nothing to "discuss" afterwards after they had felt it some day

They just know that Truth does exist, and that's it.

Sorry for obscuring the issue here - I just couldn't help myself

[Scott H Young]

A wise friend once told me:

"Ultimately truth is really just something we've agreed upon."

Argenberg the secret Daoist among us.

[taylor]

Truth is beyond 'is.'

[DanielBrenton]

I'm imagining Yoda going "no, no, no!"

I'm going to make a statement, and I know it's an emotionally loaded one, because so many major religions make this statement that we all know instinctively it's wrong, because they claim they're it. But I ask you to consider the what I'm trying to communicate with these things called words, these "shadows of shadows."

There is only one Truth.

It could be no corporeal creature can perceive it. I believe there have been some that have, but that is only a "faith" on my part.

It is intuitively obvious (to my intuition, anyway) that "Truth" and "Reality" are synonymous. I know most of us have probably been exposed to the idea (or even experience) of a "subjective" reality, but it only makes sense to me that Reality (with a big "R") is constant, absolute, unitary, omnipresent. I suspect it is also conscious -- maybe the "mother of all consciousnesses." When we speak of subjective reality, I tend to think of what Richard Bach called "illusions," which I prefer to call "experience," because the word "illusion" has the connotation of a lack of substance. "Experience" is substantial, but impermanent.

I think "experience" and dreams are similar phenomena, both serving the purpose of presenting learning opportunities to us through the language of metaphor.

I've written a lot about this, and restating it here would be, well, redundant. If you're interested, see "My Standard Model" and a more personal take on it at "The Meaning of Existence - Honest."

Again, it would be very easy to get caught up the the semantics of what all of us are trying to communicate here, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of us have already really meant the same thing.

[AndyMartin]

Originally Posted by Daniel Brenton

There is only one Truth.

Exactly. Which is why there is no absolute truth.



While I agree it is a completely valid supposition that there is essential truth, we are wholly subjective beings. That is, 100% of our experience is filtered through our perceptions and our interpretive faculty. Which means we are by our present nature insulated from that essential truth. So a standard model might be an accurate way of explaining existence, an accurate standard model cannot be accurately described. The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao. Because it is an explanation filtered through perception and interpretation, then again through articulation.

And that's assuming that a complete and accurate model can be arrived at, which would require unlimited faculties of perception and comprehension. Any model conceived by a human mind, no matter how enlightened, would still be limited by the limited nature of the being to which it is revealed. What we can do is develop sets of models that are effective for examining and navigating various aspects of experiential and speculative reality, and use those to help us expand our awareness so that we can take in a larger portion of truth and develop a new set of better models to help us expand our awareness so that we can take in a larger portion of...

You get the picture.

In case you didn't notice, this alleviates all pressure to be right or to be agreed with. The only enlightenment is the enlightenment of this moment, even if it is a very low level of enlightenment. Every belief is true until it ceases to be so for the holder, and the greatest truth we can seek is the one that breaks that which we currently know to be true. And every alternate truth we hear brings us one step closer to the next one we find.

So thanks for sharing yours.

[DanielBrenton]

Andy --

I may be looking at semantics here, but I think there's a subtlety that I'm not hearing.

What I call Truth isn't something that can be described, just as the Tao states. It is a state of being. It sounds like you may have read some of my site; there I make reference to the Hindu saying, Ram Nam Satya Hey -- "God's name is Truth." At some point the in the spiritual path I suspect the mind finally quits trying to capture the universe in some kind of mental category and that's probably one of those "Bodhi tree moments" where we step outside of the modeling and conceptualizing and just be.

That would be an experience of what I'm calling Truth.

Of course, the mind would probably start working again and shut it out, depending on the level of our spiritual progress, I suppose.

And you're absolutely right (true in an absolute sense?) -- if I need you to believe my truth, then I haven't found It. I think it's entirely independent of what we think of it.

[aelle]

Jeez, that was my essay subject for my philosophy exam for high school graduation : "Does the truth depend on us?" I concluded "yes". Got 10/20

What is commonly accepted as "the truth" depends on a lot of factors.
Fourthdan, sometimes the earth is flat. When we want to build a house we'd better consider the Earth is locally flat.

Okay, this example is a bit provocative, but I want to point out that even in science, most "truths" depend very much on the hypotheses we choose to consider.

[AndyMartin]

DanielBrenton--

Yeah, I did read some of your site before posting my response. I enjoyed your post because I think we're seeing the yin and the yang of the same principle. The absolute and the non-absolute only exist because we haven't transcended them, but sometimes you can see both sides and sense the whole that is bifurcated by our perceptions. The absolute is the essential self, but because we don't experience the self in totality our experiential self is non-abolute.

Form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. (The Heart Sutra)

The absolute and the non-absolute are both sides of our self; the experiential cannot exist without the essential and the essential seems to need the experiential--otherwise why would we be here?

Shunryu Suzuki comments that we hope to reach a point where form is form and emptiness is emptiness--this, he says, is right practice. I suppose that means that the essential and the absolute begin to coexist without tension, where the essential can just be and the experential can just experience. No more striving, no more clinging. Funny that it's easier to understand the paradoxical than the unitive state.

For now anyway.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao. Because it is an explanation filtered through perception and interpretation, then again through articulation.

The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

Chuang-tzu

[DanielBrenton]

You know, if we got any deeper here this forum would almost certainly collapse into a singularity, and duality would cease to exist.

Wanna try it?

I gotta say there are really some pretty amazing folks here -- even for people from the Midwest ... right Lotus?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DanielBrenton

You know, if we got any deeper here this forum would almost certainly collapse into a singularity, and duality would cease to exist.

The Singularity is coming. (Shameless geek plug for an interesting novel that the author very graciously offers for d/l under the Creative Commons License. It concerns an up-coming technological Singularity in which we'll all upload ourselves into computers and become a hive mind. Scary.)

Originally Posted by DanielBrenton

I gotta say there are really some pretty amazing folks here -- even for people from the Midwest ... right Lotus?

Daniel, the doorknob thread has me in koan mode.

[Jake Danger]

Originally Posted by fourthdan

what's true to me may not be true to you. Just like "there is a god""

Just to play Devil's advocate here, I want to try a subsitution: "what's true to me may not be true to you. Just like "there is such a person as Fourthdan"

Do you exist for me, because I believe you do, but when someone else doesn't believe in you, you just wink out of existence? And then back again when a third person decides that you do, indeed, exist after all?

Please don't stop believing in my existence; I don't wanna die...

[DanielBrenton]

Jake --

(I suppose the devil has his place ... )

This is the problem I have with the intellectual discussion on reality being subjective. I haven't got the slightest fear that I will cease to exist if you stop thinking about me, you can't possibly have that fear because of me, and I really don't think the physical universe has that concern from either of us.

It does seem clear there is some kind of interaction between consciousness and what we call reality. It is probably fair to say we're all in this soup together. I speculate (yes, speculate) that dreams and reality are different versions of the same phenomenon, but that reality is the group manifestation of it.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I can't seem to find my silverware.

[Jake Danger]

Originally Posted by DanielBrenton

dreams and reality are different versions of the same phenomenon, but that reality is the group manifestation of it.

I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying. What you seem to be saying is that there is no distinction between social consensus reality and actual reality ("reality is group-subjective") - that is, reality is whatever we agree that it is. Ideas have consequences, and the consequence of that idea is that anyone who disagrees with the group's understanding of reality is out of touch with reality and thus insane. It follows that since the people in this forum all seem to have minority opinions (compared to mainstream society), then we're all insane. And ironically, anyone who believes that reality is subjective is insane because the social consensus of the majority asserts that reality is objective...

"Reality is subjective" Is that statement true? If so, is it subjectively true, or objectively true? Can I say, for example, "reality is subjective for you, but objective for me"? If I said that, I'd be agreeing that reality is subjective for everyone...but if it's the same for everyone, how can it be subjective? On the other hand, if I denied that statement, I'd be asserting that reality is objective. All roads seem to lead to Rome...

By the way, I have formed a new association called the Society for the Prevention of Mathematical Intolerance. Its main idea is that two plus two does not necessarily equal four - two plus two equals whatever you believe it equals, as long as you are sincere in your belief. We are currently accepting donations (cash only - no checks please - for some reason we seem to be having trouble keeping up with how much money is in our bank account! )

[FearlessGhost]

I have been asking myself if there is such a thing as good and bad, right or wring, true or false, and if there is indeed a neutrality. I used to think that neutrality is the way to go, but one of Steve's recent articles on the subject got me thinking. Now after much contemplation and reasoning, my personal view is that there is only truth and that truth is balance. It seems at first that there is a positive and negative depending upon which perspective is taken but from the respect of the whole, the whole is always in balance and therefore true. According to the Tao Te Ching, one of the laws of the Universe is, "that which is in balance tends towards non-balance, and that which is non-balanced, tends towards balance" thus creating a balance unto itself.

[DanielBrenton]

Originally Posted by Jake Danger

I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying. What you seem to be saying is that there is no distinction between social consensus reality and actual reality ("reality is group-subjective") - that is, reality is whatever we agree that it is. Ideas have consequences, and the consequence of that idea is that anyone who disagrees with the group's understanding of reality is out of touch with reality and thus insane. It follows that since the people in this forum all seem to have minority opinions (compared to mainstream society), then we're all insane. And ironically, anyone who believes that reality is subjective is insane because the social consensus of the majority asserts that reality is objective...

"Reality is subjective" Is that statement true? If so, is it subjectively true, or objectively true? Can I say, for example, "reality is subjective for you, but objective for me"? If I said that, I'd be agreeing that reality is subjective for everyone...but if it's the same for everyone, how can it be subjective? On the other hand, if I denied that statement, I'd be asserting that reality is objective. All roads seem to lead to Rome...

Well, I think we got caught up in semantics, and I wasn't clear enough, and I'll take the blame for that.

I believe Reality, with a big "R" is absolute. I don't think the majority of us experience Reality. In fact, it's probably only the Big Names (Jesus, Buddha, etc.) who do. If you go back to my posts on this thread from 11-09-2006 07:43 PM and 11-09-2006 09:55 PM, (and my post on the "Are Doorknobs Conscious?" thread that will give you more of a context of where I'm coming from) , I choose to call what most of us call Reality as "Experience," because the word "illusion" has misleading connotations. I suspect there is a consensus at some level -- probably nowhere near conscious -- of what this is. Dreams can be and frequently are lessons/messages, and I think "experience" is as well. What I was suggesting is that perhaps "experience" is a group manifestation of the same phenomenon as dreams.

I don't believe Reality (with a big "R") is subjective at all. But dreams are, and "experience" would be, but the "subjectivity" of "Experience" is somehow more complex because it involves the interaction of everyone. I could speculate further that there's an overall spiritual "life plan" for the world or this "plane of existence," but I have nothing to base that on.

[Wufeni]

If we can prove that there is one truth, then the answer to this question is 'false', as in proving one truth, the statement is false, as it says there is no truth.
So we need one truth that we can be proven
But can we prove without a doubt that it is truth?
Yes, but first a definition of truth:
One definition of truth is saying 'it is' and then 'it being so' in reality.
Now that the definition of truth is given, the proof of there being at least one truth.

Question - is there at least one truth?
Answer - Yes.
Proof- we are thinking (if you disagree with this statement, you are thinking)
Now according to Aristotle:
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.
If we find this hard to understand, then in simpler terms:
'we know for certain that we think (as we cannot deny that we think, because in doing so we are thinking), so to then deny that we think when we know we think is false'
To accept that we think because we think is truth.
Hence there is at least one truth.

Note-
Now this proof is for me. Why? Because i know i think hence i know it is one truth. I cannot prove that you think. Only you can prove that you think. So if you understand what i have said, (i.e. you know that you cannot deny that you think) then you know a truth (that is that you think).

What does this mean?
There is at least one truth
Therefore the statement 'there is no truth' is false.

But it can be only be proven false subjectively, as only subjectively can you know that you think, hence know there is a truth and hence know that this statement is false.

Interestingly, a consequence of this is we can find new truths (which are true because of our first fundamental truth), subjectively though. E.g I can be certain that I think, and as thinking is present i can be certain of the present.

[Christian223]

There are absolute truths, but we often cant reach them, it all depends on our personal perspective.

Relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Jake Danger

There is no such thing as 'truth'! True or false?

Yes! and no.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Wufeni

Interestingly, a consequence of this is we can find new truths (which are true because of our first fundamental truth), subjectively though. E.g I can be certain that I think, and as thinking is present i can be certain of the present.

I can be certain that I think, and because thinking is a non-instantaneous process, I can be certain that there is a past, at least to the extent that such past is responsible for my present state of thinking. It would also be reasonable to assume that there is a longer period of "past" where things happened to me, and I can now remember some of them.

Andrew Brunelle, do you believe that the past is an illusion? How do you know the present isn't an illusion as well?

[torilink]

Beliefs are not truths.
Truth is NOT something to believe.
Truth merely IS and must be accepted.

When we reside within the illusory state of false self and all it manifests then we can think we know truth, but really what we know are our beliefs.

Beliefs are justifications for resistance.

so what is Truth? Non Resistance, non judgment, and complete acceptance, within this moment.

or sum'n like that....

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Jake Danger

"Reality is subjective"

Reality isn't subjective. It's just humans' perceptions, opinions and judgements that are subjective.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Reality isn't subjective. It's just humans' perceptions, opinions and judgements that are subjective.

Well, that's your reality, anyway.