ArloNet • A step toward tolerance and inclusion

Goofus · **Posted:** Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:07 am

Truth is a perception. My truth is not your truth. Vice-versa. If you think you hold the only truth you may need to take stock and look around. I have seen the truth change over the years.

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:31 am

agnes wrote:

zap. i was reading this (once again, i am reading something i have not read before...learning something new) and i am wondering...what does that mean....what does it mean? and so i look around and find this concept:
astrology -> astronomy, alchemy -> chemistry, magic -> physics, religion -> science

i cannot take credit for that concise measure of words, and i do not know who to give credit to.

perhaps it is a concept reduced to it's essence in a "folk process" kind of thing ? does it fit?

I reckon that it's a normal evolutionary process to explain things (or find "the truth"?). One would naturally (or eventually) follow what preceded it, no? Seems right to me. But I still don't think Ron's getting what a few of us are trying to say.

Truth (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary):
1 a archaic : fidelity, constancy b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : true 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard

As you can see, truth can mean different things to different folks.

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:44 am

Ron wrote:

In what you shared from the book, would you say that a person, if they really wanted to "see", would not move to get a closer, more accurate look at what was in the middle of the circle? I think we are naturally curious - some to greater or lesser extent. I would have gotten up and looked more closely. Indeed, if the folks stayed where they were each would have a distorted version of the truth. Even though, in that scenario, they would have a differing "truth" from others in the circle; they would all believe a falsehood as they would not truly "see" the truth.

The story was allegorical. The two objects in the center were representations (maybe I should have been more specific on that). If it were the Universe and everything in it (allegory thing happenin' there), one could look more closely at parts of it but would not be able to see the whole deal. That's all I'm sayin' on the subject. This is something best discussed in a cozy bar or around a campfire with lots of inebriating liquids and such.

Ron · **Posted:** Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:24 pm

I do understand allegory even though it seems I don't. I felt my question would apply to anything - the subject you mentioned even - the universe. That is indeed what many scientists are doing - getting up to take a closer look to add to their knowledge and hopefully arrive at the truth of it all. It's what archeologists are doing, mathematicians, biologists, anyone who is studying to know more. To find the truth is what drives much research. What the story you mentioned illustrated was since all have a different vantage point their "truths" will vary relative to that vantage point and due to that vantage point.

Goofus, I do not and could not have exclusive hold on the truth. Far from it. From your response I see I haven't been clear in my thoughts. I apologize for that. I do still stand by the thought that if something can change it was never the truth. We obviously disagree on that. No worries. As I stated in an earlier post I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with my thoughts. I'm more bouncing my thoughts off you folks here to learn some more - what you folks think, get a better definition of what I think, get a different view, think about something more closely than I might otherwise. Goofus, I appreciate your responses.

I think the good Capt. is on to something as we perhaps can't take this any farther. I feel the problem is more at my end than yours. What I get: most of you who have shared believe truth to be relative, changeable, fluid, not solid, flexible, based only on momentary fact - truth is in the mind of the "beholder" and is different for every "beholder". It is not easily known nor is it commonly shared on a broad level due to the way it is perceived. What may have been ascribed as truth in the past is not necessarily truth now. It can and does change over time as knowledge is gained. Truth can never be fully known and perhaps, not completely arrived at.

Again, I appreciate all who have shared on this. Sorry to be a frustration in explanation - so to speak. Have a cold one on me Capt.! (And yes agnes, I'll take a pineapple upside down Jones soda - thank you so much.)

leoburg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:20 am

Oh the truth of 2000 years ago is not going to turn out the truth today. Wonder how many meanings being born again can have...

Goofus · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:39 am

I dunno. I think you have been very concise in your thoughts. A few years back I would have been your poster child. I have learned that my truth does not necessarily work for everyone around me. Sometimes I know they are wrong...other times...

Cheryl Harrell · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:25 am

I believe Johnny Cash had out a song called What Is Truth. I think he was the one who did it...

Ceashel · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:05 am

My 2 cents' worth: The only possible truth available to us is the physical laws of our own particular universe, and the rest is how we perceive it. Western math and science are trying to get ever closer to understanding those laws (truth) through mathematical proofs and empirical means. Philosophy (including religious philosophy) tries to do the same, but through reasoning. And most religions are more or less based on a religious philosophy (but dump on that a lot of social and political strictures and call them truth, as well). A somewhat clumsy analogy; here's how the Wizard wrote the very page you're looking at now (there's more in other files, but this one drives the page):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

<html>
<head>
<title>ArloNet</title>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
</head>

<frameset cols="20,*,20" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
borderwidth="0">
<frame src="left.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="left">

<frameset rows="127,*,28" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
borderwidth="0">
<frame src="header.php" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="5" name="head">

<frameset cols="127,*,0,0,0,0" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
scrolling="no" borderwidth="0">

<frame src="nav_res.shtml" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="nav">
<frame src="main.php" noresize scrolling="yes" marginwidth="15"
marginheight="15" name="main">
<frame src="myspace/horoscope/daily_extended.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/horoscope/daily_singles.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/vis_tracker/visitors.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/comics/comics.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
</frameset>

<frame src="footer.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="foot">

</frameset>

<frame src="left.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="right">
</frameset>

</body>
</html>

So what we're all seeing is a representation of that, but we're seeing it through Internet Explorer, or Firefox, or Safari, etc., and some on Macs, some on PCS, etc. Also, we can change the look somewhat with the controls available in our accounts. It may act and look a little differently for each of us. Some among us can read the code and if the other files are available, could pretty much predict what the page looks like (mathematicians, scientists). Some could look at the page and figure out how it was probably coded (philosophers). The rest of us look at it through their various computers and browsers (personal beliefs), and that's fine, too; we're all seeing the same thing. As long as you don't try to make me use the same configuration you use because you think it's better. I like mine, thank you very much. My favorite part of all this is that PCs and Macs get more alike as time goes by, and science and some religious philosophy seem to be on a convergent path as well. And that's all I have to say about that (maybe).

agnes · **Joined:** Sep 15, 1999 **Posts:** 8350

Ron wrote:

(And yes agnes, I'll take a pineapple upside down Jones soda - thank you so much.)

you shall have it! perhaps i will try one of those m.f. grape jones'...just a little...tiny bit...

cheers!

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:59 pm

I like Ceashel's analogy :idea:

agnes · **Joined:** Sep 15, 1999 **Posts:** 8350

for some reason this discussion reminds me a little of those when you were a kid and the adults in the room (because there are kids present) will spell out in letters entire sentences? i can dig it though!! for some reason it is a difficult discussion to have sometimes! (maybe i should speak for myself?)

oh yeah,,,zap, it looks like we understood that quote in the same way?

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:32 pm

Which quote? There was a lot of 'em!

agnes · **Joined:** Sep 15, 1999 **Posts:** 8350

oh,,,sorry about that...
this one

agnes wrote:

Captain Zap wrote:

Quotes from Mr. Smarty Pants himself, Albert Einstein:

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

zap. i was reading this (once again, i am reading something i have not read before...learning something new) and i am wondering...what does that mean....what does it mean? and so i look around and find this concept:
astrology -> astronomy, alchemy -> chemistry, magic -> physics, religion -> science

i cannot take credit for that concise measure of words, and i do not know who to give credit to.

perhaps it is a concept reduced to it's essence in a "folk process" kind of thing ?

does it fit?

Wyldflower · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:21 pm

Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'
- Kahlil Gibran

(I do love my quote-finder)

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:37 pm

Okay! Gotchya, Agnes. Yep, we did.

Biography

Forums

FAQ

Chat

Links

Contact

Search

Home of Everyone's Favorite Folkslinger!

Login

Register

Options

A step toward tolerance and inclusion

Topic Options

Who is online