You are not logged in.

#1 2020-12-11 23:44:14

Happy
Moderator

"Truth" is a difficult thing

I recently stated that "'evidence' is used only (-) to reach a common agreement of 'truth', which is a subjective concept in its entirety."

In another connection, I used a circular reasoning in describing subjectivity. Circular reasoning is evidence of a lack of essential elements in the logical deliberation. Descartes faced this in his quest for proof for his own existence. At some point, one needs to break out of the loop to continue. For that you need either new information, or you need to ignore valid points.

The following statements describe the loop:

-  "relative" is "inter-personal"
-  subjectivity is an internal focus
-  subjectivity alone tend to develop into what I call "extreme relativity."

Since the two latter points must be considered presumptions, at best, one can suspect there's something to pick on there.

Now, what did I miss?


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

#2 2020-12-12 08:58:42

Robert369
Member

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

Truth varies with perspective (which includes ethics/programmings), knowledge and understanding (which includes consciousness awareness) - all of which can be summarized as truth being subjective.

This is because you can only consider true what one can grasp and understand, and there are many things that are beyond one's perception making it impossible to see the larger picture. At the same time, while it may require some effort, it is possible to see the smaller picture from an above view.

In regards to consciousness awareness and densities this translates into higher densities being able to see anything below their own frequency, while the lower densities cannot see anything beyond their own frequency.

This also works for more mundane issues where e.g. different programmings (e.g. ethics or beliefs) consider one things good and the other bad, by that leading to tensions towards people who think otherwise, while from an above view both these "more immersed views" simply "are" and thus don't get judged.

And if we now add how timelines work and that past is individual anyways and only the present is actually shared, things become even more difficult to define "the truth", because it is very well possible that different people that "play the game of life together today" lived in different pasts with different histories - just like they at some point will leave the shared present time again to each go their own desired/manifested path for the future.

So yes, naturally all truth is subjective and only the very basics e.g. about how the universe works are valid for everyone playing this game, because that's the given game world. At least until one goes beyond 5D and then can manipulate physicality at will, while even further "up" less and less "little game world rules" apply.


Helping people to self-empower and liberate themselves, and by that ultimately the whole planet and beyond. See my profile for means to connect.

Offline

#3 2020-12-12 10:44:12

mitkobs
Member

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

There is absolute truth and there are universal laws that define it. These universal laws cannot be changed and do not depend on anyone temporal points of view. For example the law of one - all is one and one is all. Cannot be changed, cannot be altered, it is absolute. We can have only illusions of not being the one.

Offline

#4 2020-12-13 02:44:51

Happy
Moderator

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

Ah, thank you, Robert and mitkobs! You both gave me something to work with here. I really appreciate that. smile

mitkobs, you bring a good point to the table. If absolute truth is the only truth there is, then your notion can actually be considered an argument to dismiss alternative understanding. It is probably a very good argument, if one has the perspective of being the all. I am aware that there are those among us, who equal themselves with being one with everything, but - humbly - I'm not quite that advanced yet. I recognize the perspectives I hold being only parts of it all. I am a fraction of it, or maybe a fractal is a better word here. 

To get a grip on the changing world we find ourselves in, we need to use what we have. Our abilities to abstract and conceptualize are important for the expanding view of the world - and ourselves. If our familiar concepts become insufficient for our use, we have the liberty to change them and make them applicable. But if we are to communicate these modified understandings, we need to make sure they are understandable to others as well. Which is why we need to be somewhat thorough in such endeavors. Some may find it tedious and boring, but then, such differences are some of the charms in being part of a diverse community.

Why truth? I think truth is essential for the shaping a common understanding of reality. We often see the tendency to become defensive if our truths are picked on. Which is an indication that we attach ourselves to them in ways that make us socially inflexible or rigid. Such attachment is a good topic in itself. It can translate into resistance to include variations in perspectives into one's own. Hence it describes the formation of what I call 'borders' between people. The function of such borders are principally the same as physical borders, I suspect.

Robert, you open 'doors' in your reply, that could justify several threads here in this forum. It's really exciting. But it's difficult to take a grip on it all at once, so I need to take some time to sort out some thoughts here... smile


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

#5 2020-12-13 05:17:06

mitkobs
Member

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

With adding more different perspectives/points of view understanding grows, we see more, we start to see the bigger picture, become able to solve the puzzle of life. The bigger the picture becomes - it reveals the universal absolute laws that govern the Universe and are the greatest reality, the reality beyond all realities.

Last edited by mitkobs (2020-12-13 05:19:16)

Offline

#6 2020-12-13 07:55:04

Happy
Moderator

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

mitkobs wrote:

With adding more different perspectives/points of view understanding grows, we see more, we start to see the bigger picture, become able to solve the puzzle of life.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you, mitkobs! smile


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

#7 2020-12-13 11:33:17

Happy
Moderator

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

ok... knitty-gritty here...

Understanding
Robert, you say: "[...] you can only consider true what one can grasp and understand [...]." Wouldn't it be considered truth, if one adopts another's truth, without being able to verify it, or even understand it? I'd say this happens a lot between priests and their congregations. Many have adopted the stories about Jesus in the Bible as their own truths; his walk on the water, as an example. Much of it is difficult to understand by most people in this world, but many accept it as 'standalone' truths.

Truth - Attachment - Belief
This touches upon what I suspect is the aspect of attachment, mentioned above. Could it be, that if a true statement is emotionally attached as "the truth on the matter," then it changes 'weight' somehow? Maybe 'true' and 'truth' are the same all-in-all. But we aren't triggered the same way when 'true' statements (or factual descriptions) are questioned, as opposed to our 'truths', which then perhaps become equivalent to our 'beliefs'. It's as if they're converted into what is called a priori characteristics; primary statements that don't need to, or cannot be proven (- which allegedly is what Descartes found out about himself through reasoning). What converts a true statement into belief?

The reason I find this important, is that I strongly suspect emotional attachment to be a mechanism (though not the only one) that activates the transfer of 'truths' between people. This is what justifies them, when saying "science says <yada-yada>," when science really never said a thing; it was always people who said it in the first place. They have attached somebody's investigative conclusions as their own truths, which then can be activated as arguments when they are questioned otherwise, or they themselves question another. It seems forgotten that one of science's prime functions is to reject its own 'truths' when new information expands the picture. Science as a method tells us when we can safely do that. It primarily asks questions. The answers are just a function of how well thought the questions were. Knowledge based on science is prone to be rejected at some point, when new knowledge arrives. (I guess this is what James Gilliland points to, when he refers to "there is a lie in every belief").

Trust
'Trust' is another 'mechanism' that is activated. Or maybe it's just another flavor of the above (- it could even be the core aspect). Trust is rooted so deeply in us, that we can rely on saving life by performing extremely dangerous physical acts based on trust alone (bungee-jumping and all kinds of risk-sports come to mind here...). It is a very powerful feature about us. It builds confidence and gives people the sense of being closely related when shared. World economy is built on it: In all agreements of trade, we trust our equal standing (- to enter a trade is always voluntary. If not, it's either blackmail or fraud). The above mentioned attachment makes trust 'the real deal'.

Self awareness
Yazhi/Swaruu said it's what you are not that defines you. I see truth in this. It's a negative definition in strict logic, so it doesn't describe you, but states what your limits are. Your experiences describe you, which gives you your own history in time, or your personal/conscious timeline. How they shaped your perceptions of things is the 'meat of the matter', so to speak. Frequencies in resonance can form standing waves and harmonies. I guess the one-way perception across densities is a direct consequence of how frequencies are generated in such resonance and harmony. It's likely vastly more complicated than that, but I think it's a good approximation.

Time
Maybe our experiences in different timelines/lifetimes have the purpose exactly to make us embrace the validity of truth in its own right, independent of who is attached to it; "to see the world in a grain of sand." (From William Blake's Auguries of Innocence). It all becomes perception awareness...


Impact on Ethics - the consequential effects of truth
It is in conjunction with ethics that 'truth' ties into everything else, as I see it. And it involves my own earlier re-definition of concepts. The most important aspect of our ability to judge comprise the relative ranking of possible outcomes, before making a choice of behavior. We understand ethics as our "standard of behavior." But when you tell somebody else what that standard is, you moralize. Moral is similarly defined, it is a "standard of behavior." So the difference in those two is found in your communication. So I chose to re-define moral as "the standard of behavior one communicates," while ethics became "the standard of behavior one actually adhere to oneself." All corrupt behavior indicate that there's a difference between those two, and it's your ethics that matters for your personal growth. That is where your maturity, or frequency, shows itself.

How good your advise is to others (your moral input), is dependent of your intent and your insight/experience/knowledge, or in other words your 'truths' or 'beliefs'. If your intent is to not care  if they are harmed or suffer from your advice, although your insight qualify you to do so, then this becomes a reflection of your ethics. Which means you know better. But if you don't know better, and give them the same advice, we're just talking about ignorance. If you choose according to your best knowledge, and things go bad, then you have an excellent learning opportunity. Next time you know better. I am sure this is what Yazhi has talked about when she so strongly has hinted that the higher frequency we inherit, i.e. the more integrated we are and with the perspectives that comes with it, the more responsibility we carry. If we ignore to grow and improve on our ethics, and if we don't care while having the insight to do so, we are basically corrupted and will inevitably regress.

There are some curious properties of these modified definitions of ethics and moral. For example, if you teach ethics, you moralize per definition. Which means ethics cannot be taught, as I see it, with one exception. There is one modality of teaching which submit the responsibility of the 'lesson' entirely to the pupil. This is called modeling, and is a situation where the pupil observes the situation in all of her/his capacity. Her/his empathetic abilities or skills then determines how well s/he identifies with the situation, and whether the choices the model makes are understood. This understanding may become attached as a personal experience, and embed itself as personal growth with ethical implications. It is a very effective way to learn, and we all know how it works from our upbringing; this is what 'role-models' are all about.

How Does the Soul Evolve? - Yazhí Swaruu (Extraterrestrial Contact)
Transcript Youtube
Yazhí Swaruu (11:10): "[...] nobody gives you your soul. It is not created either, nobody forms it. It just is ... And you're the one who creates it, doing it on the way. Its values that govern it, its ethics. Its understanding that this is all that matters."


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

#8 2020-12-13 18:09:34

Robert369
Member

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

Happy wrote:

Understanding
Robert, you say: "[...] you can only consider true what one can grasp and understand [...]." Wouldn't it be considered truth, if one adopts another's truth, without being able to verify it, or even understand it? I'd say this happens a lot between priests and their congregations. Many have adopted the stories about Jesus in the Bible as their own truths; his walk on the water, as an example. Much of it is difficult to understand by most people in this world, but many accept it as 'standalone' truths.

Truth - Attachment - Belief
What converts a true statement into belief? This touches upon what I suspect is the aspect of attachment, mentioned above. Could it be, that if a true statement is emotionally attached as "the truth on the matter," then it changes 'weight' somehow? Maybe 'true' and 'truth' are the same all-in-all. But we aren't triggered the same way when 'true' statements (or factual descriptions) are questioned, as opposed to our 'truths', which then perhaps become equivalent to our 'beliefs'. It's as if they're converted into what is called a priori characteristics; primary statements that don't need to, or cannot be proven (- which allegedly is what Descartes found out about himself through reasoning). What converts a true statement into belief?

The reason I find this important, is that I strongly suspect emotional attachment to be a mechanism (though not the only one) that activates the transfer of 'truths' between people. This is what justifies them, when saying "science says <yada-yada>," when science really never said a thing; it was always people who said it in the first place. They have attached somebody's investigative conclusions as their own truths, which then can be activated as arguments when they are questioned otherwise, or they themselves question another. It seems forgotten that one of science's prime functions is to reject its own 'truths' when new information expands the picture. Science as a method tells us when we can safely do that. It primarily asks questions. The answers are just a function of how well thought the questions were. Knowledge based on science is prone to be rejected at some point, when new knowledge arrives. (I guess this is what James Gilliland points to, when he refers to "there is a lie in every belief").

My answer to these questions is that "truth" can be verified and confirmed, hence the need to grasp and perceive it, while belief is just adopting a "seeming truth" without any verification or confirmation - which indeed allows for lies to be spread.

A key point here is the emotional discernment, which - if one is of sufficiently high frequency and trained in it - allows to resonate with what is true, e.g. through the Higher Self's knowledge "beyond one's current perception". This at the same time can enable to "pick up" additional knowledge from "above" as to then be able to grasp and perceive more than what was available to oneself from what can be learnt by earthly means.

This goes hand-in-hand with "inner knowing" and "innerstanding" for which there is no objective proof, but this proof in my view is more valuable than any mundane proof and creates a deeper and more expanded "truth" than any earthly means with "3D proof" can achieve.

Happy wrote:

Trust
'Trust' is another 'mechanism' that is activated. Or maybe it's just another flavor of the above (- it could even be the core aspect). Trust is rooted so deeply in us, that we can rely on saving life by performing extremely dangerous physical acts based on trust alone (bungee-jumping and all kinds of risk-sports come to mind here...). It is a very powerful feature about us. It builds confidence and gives people the sense of being closely related when shared. World economy is built on it: In all agreements of trade, we trust our equal standing (- to enter a trade is always voluntary. If not, it's either blackmail or fraud). The above mentioned attachment makes trust 'the real deal'.

Trust in my view is either based on belief, which can be abused via mind-control and cheats, or inner knowing, which is unfoolable and reveals the true intentions. Depending on the type of trust this is either harmful or helpful, and yes, depending on which type of trust is involved and if you are on the receiving or deceiving end, it is "the real deal" - though either for one only if negative, or both if positive.

Happy wrote:

Self awareness
Yazhi/Swaruu said it's what you are not that defines you. I see truth in this. It's a negative definition in strict logic, so it doesn't describe you, but states what your limits are. Your experiences describe you, which gives you your own history in time, or your personal/conscious timeline. How they shaped your perceptions of things is the 'meat of the matter', so to speak. Frequencies in resonance can form standing waves and harmonies. I guess the one-way perception across densities is a direct consequence of how frequencies are generated in such resonance and harmony. It's likely vastly more complicated than that, but I think it's a good approximation.

I'd say that this depends of how one defines this "being" that "you are": If it is based on the physical form which we only decided to use for the purpose of experiences/activities, I shall agree, but if it is based on the inner being (aka soul), I shall oppose because that exactly is what we really are.

Happy wrote:

Time
Maybe our experiences in different timelines/lifetimes have the purpose exactly to make us embrace the validity of truth in its own right, independent of who is attached to it; "to see the world in a grain of sand." (From William Blake's "Auguries of Innocence" https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ … -innocence). It all becomes perception awareness...

Indeed, since nothing really exists except a gigantic wave soup, everything we consider "real" is a result of our current perception awareness as to allow for a suitable translation of wave patterns into experiences - and so even across various timelines/lifetimes that accumulate in parallel. And since our awareness levels constantly change, so does our perceived reality - hopefully constantly into an expanding direction.

Happy wrote:

Impact on Ethics - the consequential effects of truth
It is in conjunction with ethics that 'truth' ties into everything else, as I see it. And it involves my own earlier re-definition of concepts. The most important aspect of our ability to judge comprise the relative ranking of possible outcomes, before making a choice of behavior. We understand ethics as our "standard of behavior." But when you tell somebody else what that standard is, you moralize. Moral is similarly defined, it is a "standard of behavior." So the difference in those two is found in your communication. So I chose to re-define moral as "the standard of behavior one communicates, " while ethics became "the standard of behavior one actually adhere to oneself." All corrupt behavior indicate that there's a difference between those two, and it's your ethics that matters for your personal growth. That is where your maturity, or frequency, shows itself.

How good your advise is to others (your moral input), is dependent of your intent and your insight/experience/knowledge, or in other words your 'truths' or 'beliefs'. If your intent is to not care  if they are harmed or suffer from your advice, although your insight qualify you to do so, then this becomes a reflection of your ethics. Which means you know better. But if you don't know better, and give them the same advice, we're just talking about ignorance. If you choose according to your best knowledge, and things go bad, then you have an excellent learning opportunity. Next time you know better. I am sure this is what Yazhi has talked about when she so strongly has hinted that the higher frequency we inherit, i.e. the more integrated we are and with the perspectives that comes with it, the more responsibility we carry. If we ignore to grow and improve on our ethics, and if we don't care while having the insight to do so, we are basically corrupted and will inevitably regress.

There are some curious properties of these modified definitions of ethics and moral. For example, if you teach ethics, you moralize per definition. Which means ethics cannot be taught, as I see it, with one exception. There is one modality of teaching which submit the responsibility of the 'lesson' entirely to the pupil. This is called modeling, and is a situation where the pupil observes the situation in all of her/his capacity. Her/his empathetic abilities or skills then determines how well s/he identifies with the situation, and whether the choices the model makes are understood. This understanding may become attached as a personal experience, and embed itself as personal growth with ethical implications. It is a very effective way to learn, and we all know how it works from our upbringing; this is what 'role-models' are all about.

Nicely observed. I call what you call "matching of ethics and moral" the need to "stay true to oneself", as to not live something else that what one's inner values demand. Diverting one's way of life from the inner values will cause "frequency disorder" leading to unhappiness, illness and ultimatively even death.


Helping people to self-empower and liberate themselves, and by that ultimately the whole planet and beyond. See my profile for means to connect.

Offline

#9 2020-12-14 21:06:14

Happy
Moderator

Re: "Truth" is a difficult thing

It's worth pointing out that whenever "value" is mentioned, there is also usually a 'scale' implied, as value is a term associated with quantified measurements. This scale could either be a fixed/absolute scale (which I think mitkobs refers to when he mentions "absolute truth"), or it could be an interim scale, which appears when 'items' are ranked in relative terms. I imagine this is the case in the process of 'judgment' between possible outcomes.

There are different understandings of true/truth. As you point out, it can be an either-or thing, which is what it becomes when you tie it to facts and verification. 'True' is as such actually a logical operator, which is considered a foundation for mathematics (List of logic symbols). What I touched upon above, was the meaning closer to 'belief'. Like when Nai'Shara said: "The truth sets free, Gosia, let´s give them the the truth that is behind." There's more in that truth than mere facts. These are nuances we put into words, which can make them difficult to relate to at times. I don't say it is wrong, because the world is full of nuances. The extreme example in this would be the concept of 'love' - sometimes I feel a need to ask directly what meaning people put into that (- but usually it resolves during the conversation).

And when I said I 're-defined' moral and ethics, it's not really as ambitious as it may sound. What I basically did above here, was to describe how we may rank our own behavior, and what enables us to evaluate it as right or wrong in the situations, before we actually do it. But I could have named the definitions entirely different; moral could be "scrlwomp" and ethics could be "pips," for instance... smile


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB