Re: Dana

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Elaine on August 23, 2000 at 12:46:10:

In Reply to: Re: Dana posted by Adele on August 23, 2000 at 10:18:36:

: : : : : : : : So while we are on the subject of 'Truth'......

: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Truth is a point, the subtlest and finest; harder than adamant; never to be broken, worn away or blunted. Its only bad quality is, that it is sure to hurt those who touch it; and likely to draw blood, perhaps the life blood of those who press earnestly upon it.
: : : : : : : : (Walter Savage Landor)

: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : ~~I'm not afraid of the Truth. I believe Someone touched it for me. (Just revieling my path a bit.)

: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain't so.
: : : : : : : : (Mark Twain)

: : : : : : : ~~Ol' Sam never was a patient sort, was he?

: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Whatever satisfies the soul is truth.
: : : : : : : : (Walt Whitman)

: : : : : : : ~~I balked at this one right off, then I remembered the Balm of Gilliad.

: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
: : : : : : : : (Oscar Wilde)

: : : : : : : ~~Not through our human eyes, anyway.

: : : : : : : Thanks, Huggy! Now that were in agreement on truth and unity, maybe we can start working on the rest of that Pax Paper. Anyone feeling open-minded and in need of a good probing?:)

: : : : : : : Dana S.

: : : : : : *****

: : : : : : *me!* *i do! i do!*
: : : : : : Actually, Dana, I'm not sure there was agreement on truth & unity. Most seemed to say truth is unchanging & there can be but one; others felt truth is flexible & there can be many. The distinction between perspective & truth wasn't unanimous.
: : : : : : Unity; well, I think it was never really examined on its own merit. The discussion became one of 'how do we achieve this unity?' without defining or weighing it or considering its cost.

: : : : : : Dana, you have NO idea how much I enjoy your enthusiastic expressions (even when made within the safety of self-threads!).

: : : : : :
: : : : : : Elaine

: : : : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: : : : : I couldn't agree with you more Elaine. For someone who professes to have difficulty posting......I think our Dana has a marvellous knack for getting to the heart of things in a coherent and intelligent way (which is more than she does in her emails to ME!!!)

: : : : : As far as Unity goes, here is my question to you.......is it possible to be 'united' with someone whose way of life is fundamentally different to yours?

: : : : : And on the subject of Truth, I would be interested to hear from someone who can explain to me how there can be more than one truth?

: : : : : Sooooo.......there is something for y'all to get your teeth into!

: : : : : Adele

: : : : Good morning, Adele!

: : : : It is quite possible to have more than one "truth", as well as quite common.

: : : : "Truth" is a perception. What I perceive to be the truth, may not necessarily be what you see as the truth...........for instance, when two people witness an event, each may see it entirely different from the other. Therefore, when questioned on what happened, each may have a different story, and each believing their version to be the truth. This fact of life is borne out in courts every day........thus you have more than one "truth".......and each one quite often is correct. I deal with that little problem almost daily............

: : : : .......and that's why there is Instant Replay and appeals in the NFL!

: : : : Seamus

: : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~

: : : Ah, but you see Seamus, this is where I beg to differ. I believe that there is only one 'truth' - everything else is perception - and the two are not the same things at all. We confuse ourselves by talking about 'telling the truth', but sometimes it is not the truth, it is only our perception of the truth. For example, if I witnessed an accident, I could go in to court, lay my hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth. I then tell the truth, but another witness comes forward, also telling 'the truth' and offers a different story of events. So what is the truth? The truth is what REALLY happened, not what people saw, or remembered, or didn't see - it is the whole event, and that is something that no one person could possibly know. The best we can do, is take all the pieces of information about what happened and try and construct a picture of the truth. (I am not sure this is all making sense, but I am doing the best I can!!). I guess that I am trying to distinguish between the truth, as in being honest, and the truth, as in indisputable fact or actuality.

: : : We had a superb tv advertisement here a few years back which illustrates the point perfectly. It was for a leading broadsheet newspaper and it showed two pieces of film, the first piece showed a skinhead looking hostile and running towards a businessman, he then tackled the businessman to the floor. It then fades to black. (I could go into court and truthfully say that the skinhead charged at the businessman and knocked him to the ground). The second piece of film shows the same scene but with a wider angled lense. The part that is missing from the first piece of film is that, above the businessman, some bricks are starting to topple from the roof above the businessman, and that the skinhead actually saved the businessman from being crushed beneath the bricks. The slogan for the ad incidentally, was something along the lines of, 'get the whole picture'.

: : : Does this make any sense?

: : : Adele

: :
: : My point exactly........truth is a perception. That is why we have courts.....to decide what is the truth. (...and now for the disclaimer... OJ...need I say more??)

: : Seamus

: ~~~~~~~

: Oh dammit - looks like I failed miserably in making my point! What I was trying to say was the exact opposite of what you are saying - that perception and truth are two different things entirely, not the same at all. What we perceive to be true is not necessarily so. When we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth etc etc.....what we are actually doing is swearing to tell our perception of the truth.....

: Oh dear, beginning to wonder what my own name is now!

: Adele (I think)

****
Hello, Adele!

I don't think you failed at all! Truth & perception of truth are indeed two different things. Your example was a good case in point. Truth is the WHOLE picture & can not be changed by the success or failure to grasp it. It is.

The court analogy that Seamus used; again, it proves truth to be one & not many. Why, if truth is merely a perception, would we hold court in the first place? As Seamus said, to decide (though I'd use the word 'discover' as it is more accurate) what is the 'truth.' If the truth can even be discovered, then it must be absolute & definite, & the attempt at discovery of it will examine the perspectives in the process. If truth is a perspective then it is not reality, only an opinion of reality. (As Seamus said, BELIEVING their VERSION to be true.) If this is the case, the court is invalid as it can not possibly conclude a definite reality & therefore, can not judge. The law too will be void for if it can not be just it is no longer law.
The court's business is to dicover the truth of some matter DESPITE & by way of the perspectives brought to the table. Otherwise, the court is merely CHOOSING a perspective rather than discovering fact/truth & has no right to judge any man. That would be politics, not law. If perspective is equal to truth then any man can reject any judgment or sentence placed upon him by simply exercising his own equal perspective & say, 'I disagree.'

OJ's trial is an example of why perspective is NOT truth, is less than truth, & what goes wrong when perspective is elevated to the level of truth. There is an absolute actuality that OJ either murdered or he did not. Both can not be true & truth can not conflict with itself. If perspective is the bottom line then again, why on earth would we bother to examine, search, & hold trial? It'd be pointless.

By definition, perspective is ... the relative importance of FACTS or matters from any special point of view; Judgment of FACTS, circumstances with regard to their importance.

Truth, by definition is ... Fact, reality; That which is true; a statement or belief that corresponds to the REALITY; Conformity to FACT or reality.

One might be correct & the other is always correct. They can not be the same.

I'll take you up on the excellent question of unity later, but, for now;

By definition unity is ... The state or fact of being one; Something that is WHOLLY united and complete within itself -

Elaine

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: : : : : : : : : So while we are on the subject of 'Truth'......

: : : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : : : Truth is a point, the subtlest and finest; harder than adamant; never to be broken, worn away or blunted. Its only bad quality is, that it is sure to hurt those who touch it; and likely to draw blood, perhaps the life blood of those who press earnestly upon it.
: : : : : : : : : (Walter Savage Landor)

: : : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : : ~~I'm not afraid of the Truth.  I believe Someone touched it for me. (Just revieling my path a bit.)

: : : : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : : : Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing wrong with this, except that it ain't so.
: : : : : : : : : (Mark Twain)

: : : : : : : : ~~Ol' Sam never was a patient sort, was he?

: : : : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : : : Whatever satisfies the soul is truth.
: : : : : : : : : (Walt Whitman)

: : : : : : : : ~~I balked at this one right off, then I remembered the Balm of Gilliad.

: : : : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : : : The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
: : : : : : : : : (Oscar Wilde)

: : : : : : : : ~~Not through our human eyes, anyway.

: : : : : : : : Thanks, Huggy!  Now that were in agreement on truth and unity, maybe we can start working on the rest of that Pax Paper.  Anyone feeling open-minded and in need of a good probing?:)

: : : : : : : : Dana S.

: : : : : : : *****

: : : : : : : *me!* *i do! i do!* 
: : : : : : : Actually, Dana, I'm not sure there was agreement on truth & unity. Most seemed to say truth is unchanging & there can be but one; others felt truth is flexible & there can be many. The distinction between perspective & truth wasn't unanimous.
: : : : : : : Unity; well, I think it was never really examined on its own merit. The discussion became one of 'how do we achieve this unity?' without defining or weighing it or considering its cost.

: : : : : : : Dana, you have NO idea how much I enjoy your enthusiastic expressions (even when made within the safety of self-threads!).

: : : : : : : 
: : : : : : : Elaine

: : : : : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

: : : : : : I couldn't agree with you more Elaine.  For someone who professes to have difficulty posting......I think our Dana has a marvellous knack for getting to the heart of things in a coherent and intelligent way (which is more than she does in her emails to ME!!!)

: : : : : : As far as Unity goes, here is my question to you.......is it possible to be 'united' with someone whose way of life is fundamentally different to yours?

: : : : : : And on the subject of Truth, I would be interested to hear from someone who can explain to me how there can be more than one truth?

: : : : : : Sooooo.......there is something for y'all to get your teeth into!

: : : : : : Adele

: : : : : Good morning, Adele!

: : : : : It is quite possible to have more than one "truth", as well as quite common.

: : : : : "Truth" is a perception. What I perceive to be the truth, may not necessarily be what you see as the truth...........for instance, when two people witness an event, each may see it entirely different from the other. Therefore, when questioned on what happened, each may have a different story, and each believing their version to be the truth. This fact of life is borne out in courts every day........thus you have more than one "truth".......and each one quite often is correct. I deal with that little problem almost daily............

: : : : : .......and that's why there is Instant Replay and appeals in the NFL!

: : : : : Seamus

: : : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~

: : : : Ah, but you see Seamus, this is where I beg to differ.  I believe that there is only one 'truth' - everything else is perception - and the two are not the same things at all.  We confuse ourselves by talking about 'telling the truth', but sometimes it is not the truth, it is only our perception of the truth.  For example, if I witnessed an accident, I could go in to court, lay my hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth.  I then tell the truth, but another witness comes forward, also telling 'the truth' and offers a different story of events.  So what is the truth?  The truth is what REALLY happened, not what people saw, or remembered, or didn't see - it is the whole event, and that is something that no one person could possibly know.  The best we can do, is take all the pieces of information about what happened and try and construct a picture of the truth.  (I am not sure this is all making sense, but I am doing the best I can!!).  I guess that I am trying to distinguish between the truth, as in being honest, and the truth, as in indisputable fact or actuality.

: : : : We had a superb tv advertisement here a few years back which illustrates the point perfectly.  It was for a leading broadsheet newspaper and it showed two pieces of film, the first piece showed a skinhead looking hostile and running towards a businessman, he then tackled the businessman to the floor.  It then fades to black.  (I could go into court and truthfully say that the skinhead charged at the businessman and knocked him to the ground).  The second piece of film shows the same scene but with a wider angled lense.  The part that is missing from the first piece of film is that, above the businessman, some bricks are starting to topple from the roof above the businessman, and that the skinhead actually saved the businessman from being crushed beneath the bricks.  The slogan for the ad incidentally, was something along the lines of, 'get the whole picture'.

: : : : Does this make any sense?

: : : : Adele

: : : 
: : : My point exactly........truth is a perception. That is why we have courts.....to decide what is the truth.  (...and now for the disclaimer... OJ...need I say more??)

: : : Seamus

: : ~~~~~~~

: : Oh dammit - looks like I failed miserably in making my point!  What I was trying to say was the exact opposite of what you are saying - that perception and truth are two different things entirely, not the same at all.  What we perceive to be true is not necessarily so.  When we swear to tell the truth, the whole truth etc etc.....what we are actually doing is swearing to tell our perception of the truth.....

: : Oh dear, beginning to wonder what my own name is now!

: : Adele (I think)

: ****
: Hello, Adele!

: I don't think you failed at all! Truth & perception of truth are indeed two different things. Your example was a good case in point. Truth is the WHOLE picture & can not be changed by the success or failure to grasp it. It is.

: The court analogy that Seamus used; again, it proves truth to be one & not many. Why, if truth is merely a perception, would we hold court in the first place? As Seamus said, to decide (though I'd use the word 'discover' as it is more accurate) what is the 'truth.' If the truth can even be discovered, then it must be absolute & definite, & the attempt at discovery of it will examine the perspectives in the process. If truth is a perspective then it is not reality, only an opinion of reality. (As Seamus said, BELIEVING their VERSION to be true.)  If this is the case, the court is invalid as it can not possibly conclude a definite reality & therefore, can not judge. The law too will be void for if it can not be just it is no longer law.
: The court's business is to dicover the truth of some matter DESPITE & by way of the perspectives brought to the table. Otherwise, the court is merely CHOOSING a perspective rather than discovering fact/truth & has no right to judge any man. That would be politics, not law. If perspective is equal to truth then any man can reject any judgment or sentence placed upon him by simply exercising his own equal perspective & say, 'I disagree.'

: OJ's trial is an example of why perspective is NOT truth, is less than truth, & what goes wrong when perspective is elevated to the level of truth. There is an absolute actuality that OJ either murdered or he did not. Both can not be true & truth can not conflict with itself. If perspective is the bottom line then again, why on earth would we bother to examine, search, & hold trial? It'd be pointless.

: By definition, perspective is ... the relative importance of FACTS or matters from any special point of view; Judgment of FACTS, circumstances with regard to their importance.

: Truth, by definition is ... Fact, reality; That which is true; a statement or belief that corresponds to the REALITY; Conformity to FACT or reality.

: One might be correct & the other is always correct. They can not be the same.

: I'll take you up on the excellent question of unity later, but, for now;

: By definition unity is ... The state or fact of being one; Something that is WHOLLY united and complete within itself -

: Elaine


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Mohican WWWboard ] [ FAQ ]