Truth and truth- a revisiting. incomplete, but hopefully interesting enough for comment.
looking back over my initial reaction to the previous discussion topic, i feel a bit unsatisfied with my previous response. i could expand on the previous, but i will only do so if asked specifically. i'm posting this independent of the original post in hopes of inspiring comments. this rant is in no way exhaustive, but allow me to just express what a feel moved to express and see where it takes me...
Truth is a fool's concept. one which i have become very accustomed to using. the word itself can be more aesthetically pleasing, such as using 'true' in place of 'authentic' or 'genuine' or 'serious' or some other adjective. in this context Truth is a condition of purity, and perhaps that idea is what's missing from the broader, more abstract notion of the word.
can anything be pure? indeed what does it mean to be pure or to have purity? is it even something that can be 'had' in any legitimate sense? as a functional delineation between common objects and ideas with differing qualitative nuances (such as wine, my latest obsession), then true becomes embued with a palpable meaning. but the definition could not be divorced from the individual's values and background. to me, for instance, a bohemian lifestyle is one of the purest, and therefore "truest" ways of living. the buddhist intellectual (assuming for a moment that this isn't a contradiction in terms) would likely take issue with this interpretation.
truth, in the common sense that it is most often used, is in fact dependent on perception.
so what about the big picture, Truth with a capital T?
i have been an ardent Truth-seeker for the better part of my life. i could write a book on all my thoughts related to the big T, and i probably will some day. but for now:
though i am very spiritual, i am also very no-nonsense in my spirituality. i practice chi gung and meditation, but with a very existential sensibility. i consider nietzsche to be one of the most brilliant and 'true' philosophers in history to ever leave us with the legacy of his words. he was a man who wandered the abyss without flinching, and it ultimately became his undoing. and to me, that makes him a hero.
in Beyond Good & Evil, he suggests that it just might make more sense for the philosopher to seek Un-Truth rather than Truth. i think he was on to something with this, though i think he lacked the necessary artistic ability to convey this properly for the student or reader to fully grasp. i believe that the realization of the lie is the closest that the intellect or "reason" can come to the realization of Truth. our lives, our worlds, are a woven fabric of dishonesties and fantasies and unrealized ideals. seeing these falsehoods for what they are is a necessary precondition for perceiving even a glimpse of what could be considered Truth with a capital T. most westerners abandon the search in favor of intellectual prestige and convenience, whereas the fidelity of the Easterner curses them to forever be followers of something outside of themselves.
what does one gain by acquiring knowledge of Truth? The Gurus with whom i've had the priviledge of studying would say the same thing that i say. nothing. nothing that isn't already true. the more important question is, what does one HOPE TO GAIN by acquiring knowledge of Truth? when re-examining the matter in terms of illusion rather than assumed factual exploration, the answer becomes rather simple and accessible. most seek liberation from their fear of death, or even from death itself, as if death were an option from which one could opt out. Socrates saw philosophy (love of wisdom) as realization of and meditation on death. his willingness to sit and even find comfort in his own mortality made it easy for him to accept his own limitations, his ignorance. modern intellectuals have a habit of focusing on his awareness of his own ignorance, and never on his acceptance of his own mortal condition. life is itself a fatal condition. he realized, much like Nietzche, that purveyors of truth were easily exposed as frauds by forcing them to reveal the ways in which they are personally invested in their own ideas. academic philosophers have careers built on un-tuths, as do spiritual leaders and even some artists. seekers tend to look for something to believe in so that they might find a safe place to rest their weary yet ever-inquisitive minds, never realizing that the inquisitiveness itself is born of fear and dealing that matter head-on.
to me, knowledge of self and honesty are greater than Truth. for me, letting go yeilds more insights than grasping (anyone who has dabbled with psyhadelics or who has significant experience with meditation will probably agree). acceptance makes the journey towards Truth, whatever Truth may be, a more bearable one.
kinda random:
ancients societies once worshipped the sun, and as society evolved, so did its spiritual ideas. but i'm not convinced that the evolution in spirituality was toward something higher or better. we look back with modern eyes and assume that the ancients considered the sun to be some anthropomorphic diety, much like what christians believe in today. perhaps in their simplicity the ancients were more wise than the christians of today. perhaps what they realized was the simple fact that the sun makes all life on earth possible. that in a very true sense, the sun is indeed the giver of life, and it gives this gift unconditionally. but likewise, it will one day take life away just as unconditionally. animism, as far as i'm concerned, is a truism. but that's another story.
i think i'll stop here.
Truth is a fool's concept. one which i have become very accustomed to using. the word itself can be more aesthetically pleasing, such as using 'true' in place of 'authentic' or 'genuine' or 'serious' or some other adjective. in this context Truth is a condition of purity, and perhaps that idea is what's missing from the broader, more abstract notion of the word.
can anything be pure? indeed what does it mean to be pure or to have purity? is it even something that can be 'had' in any legitimate sense? as a functional delineation between common objects and ideas with differing qualitative nuances (such as wine, my latest obsession), then true becomes embued with a palpable meaning. but the definition could not be divorced from the individual's values and background. to me, for instance, a bohemian lifestyle is one of the purest, and therefore "truest" ways of living. the buddhist intellectual (assuming for a moment that this isn't a contradiction in terms) would likely take issue with this interpretation.
truth, in the common sense that it is most often used, is in fact dependent on perception.
so what about the big picture, Truth with a capital T?
i have been an ardent Truth-seeker for the better part of my life. i could write a book on all my thoughts related to the big T, and i probably will some day. but for now:
though i am very spiritual, i am also very no-nonsense in my spirituality. i practice chi gung and meditation, but with a very existential sensibility. i consider nietzsche to be one of the most brilliant and 'true' philosophers in history to ever leave us with the legacy of his words. he was a man who wandered the abyss without flinching, and it ultimately became his undoing. and to me, that makes him a hero.
in Beyond Good & Evil, he suggests that it just might make more sense for the philosopher to seek Un-Truth rather than Truth. i think he was on to something with this, though i think he lacked the necessary artistic ability to convey this properly for the student or reader to fully grasp. i believe that the realization of the lie is the closest that the intellect or "reason" can come to the realization of Truth. our lives, our worlds, are a woven fabric of dishonesties and fantasies and unrealized ideals. seeing these falsehoods for what they are is a necessary precondition for perceiving even a glimpse of what could be considered Truth with a capital T. most westerners abandon the search in favor of intellectual prestige and convenience, whereas the fidelity of the Easterner curses them to forever be followers of something outside of themselves.
what does one gain by acquiring knowledge of Truth? The Gurus with whom i've had the priviledge of studying would say the same thing that i say. nothing. nothing that isn't already true. the more important question is, what does one HOPE TO GAIN by acquiring knowledge of Truth? when re-examining the matter in terms of illusion rather than assumed factual exploration, the answer becomes rather simple and accessible. most seek liberation from their fear of death, or even from death itself, as if death were an option from which one could opt out. Socrates saw philosophy (love of wisdom) as realization of and meditation on death. his willingness to sit and even find comfort in his own mortality made it easy for him to accept his own limitations, his ignorance. modern intellectuals have a habit of focusing on his awareness of his own ignorance, and never on his acceptance of his own mortal condition. life is itself a fatal condition. he realized, much like Nietzche, that purveyors of truth were easily exposed as frauds by forcing them to reveal the ways in which they are personally invested in their own ideas. academic philosophers have careers built on un-tuths, as do spiritual leaders and even some artists. seekers tend to look for something to believe in so that they might find a safe place to rest their weary yet ever-inquisitive minds, never realizing that the inquisitiveness itself is born of fear and dealing that matter head-on.
to me, knowledge of self and honesty are greater than Truth. for me, letting go yeilds more insights than grasping (anyone who has dabbled with psyhadelics or who has significant experience with meditation will probably agree). acceptance makes the journey towards Truth, whatever Truth may be, a more bearable one.
kinda random:
ancients societies once worshipped the sun, and as society evolved, so did its spiritual ideas. but i'm not convinced that the evolution in spirituality was toward something higher or better. we look back with modern eyes and assume that the ancients considered the sun to be some anthropomorphic diety, much like what christians believe in today. perhaps in their simplicity the ancients were more wise than the christians of today. perhaps what they realized was the simple fact that the sun makes all life on earth possible. that in a very true sense, the sun is indeed the giver of life, and it gives this gift unconditionally. but likewise, it will one day take life away just as unconditionally. animism, as far as i'm concerned, is a truism. but that's another story.
i think i'll stop here.