Regarding what is true

[Willamena]

I get involved in a lot of discussions about truth, and everyone has their own picture of it, and their picture of truth is the brush that paints the world, as they see it. Here's mine.

Each of us believe in a thing because to us it's true. Truth is what it appears to be, the appearance of truth. There is no other, grander truth, but for the appearance of truth.

We live in the moment. What appears to us is what is, each moment; that is what's true. This means that reality, too, is what it appears to be. And the world is what it appears to be. Each moment presents us with a world that is unique and true. (Even a dream moment has the appearance of real.)

I am, in a real sense, equating as true reality and the world-as-we-know-it as one. The world is here and now; what's real is here and now, as it appears in front of you; as "in front of you" appears to you; as "you" appear. (And it's not solipsism, which is a doubting of reality. It's just a picture.)

What's true is/composes "the real world" (objective reality) at any moment. Truth can be considered to "change" from moment to moment only in the sense that the prior moment (or the next), which is not yet true/real, is held in our imagination --on the other hand, in the sense that we regard as true only what is at any moment, the truth never really changes.

Comments? (Please note this is the discussion forum, not the debate forum.)

 

[Wandered Off]

Can you be wrong in any moment?

Is everything outside your picture false and/or unreal?

What makes your imagination, which you have in your moment, not also true/real, given your definition?

 

[Engyo]

It is the truth - in that moment. Later on, when you learn things were not as you thought then, is a different moment, with its own truth.

 

[doppelganger]

Good questions, Jerry. I know they are directed at Patty, but I'm very interested as well.

Can you be wrong in any moment?

Not while in the moment. Only upon reflection after the content of your thought has changed can you say "I was wrong" and even at that, in a subsequent moment you might decide you were wrong about being wrong. At each point you are expressing the truth as you know it.

Is everything outside your picture false and/or unreal?

To you, yes. Though you can have a meta-awareness that something false to you is true and real to someone else. Few people have developed an ability to do that sort of perspective shifting with any regularity, and it takes practice. And you could have an awareness that what you perceive as "true" in the moment is only true in the transitory sense that it meets the current criteria for truth. In matters of ontology, how else can something be judged "true" other than by its ability to be useful to achieve some purpose? So a thought system could include in its "now" the realization that its own truths are a product of its own operations projected outward in an interaction with the world accessed through sensation, rather than being dictated by an external sensory world. This is what I mean when I say that reality is the integration of sensory input with forms stored in memory. If the sensory input changes, the "reality" changes. But "reality" also changes if the forms and memories change.

What makes your imagination, which you have in your moment, not also true/real, given your definition?

The fact that it is labeled as "imagination" in your thoughts. What you recognize as things you've imagined are things you know are not "real." On one level, every thing that is real to a person could be perceived as "imagined." Conscious thought interacts with the reality of experience through forms.

All truths are personal. Including that one.

 

[Willamena]

Can you be wrong in any moment?

Is everything outside your picture false and/or unreal?

While what is wrong, false and unreal is as it appears to be (truly wrong, truly false, or truly unreal), in the picture, there are a lot less of such things now than there used to be.
Edit: Dopp made a good point --that wrong, false and unreal exist relative to now.

What makes your imagination, which you have in your moment, not also true/real, given your definition?

It is true/real. There's imagination you conjure, and imagination that you have to live in. The one I conjure, I truly conjure.

 

[Wandered Off]

*WO's head implodes*

OK, this is what I understand to be perspectivism, right?

 

[YmirGF]

Each of us believe in a thing because to us it's true. Truth is what it appears to be, the appearance of truth. There is no other, grander truth, but for the appearance of truth.

...and that is why I am given to saying that "truth" is relative, (to the understanding of the individual). Maybe though, I am a bit of an oddity because I generally don't think in terms of "truth". I am far more interested in what is, rather than what I think of what is.

 

[Willamena]

OK, this is what I understand to be perspectivism, right?

This is how I see it, and if some big-name philosopher's ideas agree with me, all the better. (Which is to say that I haven't read Kant, so I can't say.)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Good stuff, Patty!

UltraViolet introduced me to the idea of co-creation--in which an individual is a part of the process of making things "real"--and I like that outlook as reality seems to be a relationship between the observer and observed. And the observer is always in a momentary state in which all that is is being created in divine measurement. Even the experience of Past, Present, and Future are of the measurement of the moment.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I am far more interested in what is, rather than what I think of what is.

But isn't the "what you think of" an is?

 

[YmirGF]

But isn't the "what you think of" an is?

I try not to think about it.

 

[Willamena]

Good stuff, Patty!

UltraViolet introduced me to the idea of co-creation--in which an individual is a part of the process of making things "real"--and I like that outlook as reality seems to be a relationship between the observer and observed. And the observer is always in a momentary state in which all that is is being created in divine measurement. Even the experience of Past, Present, and Future are of the measurement of the moment.

Yeah, the appearance of truth is as grand as truth needs to be, innit?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I try not to think about it.

Maybe it is best to let it be.

 

[doppelganger]

This is how I see it, and if some big-name philosopher's ideas agree with me, all the better. (Which is to say that I haven't read Kant, so I can't say.)

"Perspectivism" is also a centerpiece of the philosophical writings of Nietzsche.

From Genealogy of Morals:

The only seeing we have is seeing from a perspective; the only knowledge we have is knowledge from a perspective; and the more emotions we allow to be expressed in words concerning something, the more eyes, different eyes, we know how to train on the same thing, the more complete our “idea” of this thing, our “objectivity,” will be.

 

[cynic2005]

IMO:
Truth is entirely subjective, an arbitrary category that is a construct of the mind. Objective truth is also subjective, however it is a label we give to things that appear have consistency, inter-subjective verifiability, etc.

Our reality is constructed by the nervous system. It is our gateway to the external. For example, the human brain can detect tri-chromatic colors, whereas birds and reptiles can see in a fourth dimension of color and detect near ultraviolet light. What we see are our nervous system's interpretations of different wavelengths and properties of light. Everything we know and come to believe as truth is done so through the nervous system.
The region of the brain that constructs thoughts, beliefs, ideas, values, and truths is the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex acts to construct different aspects of the mind, such as thoughts, beliefs, ideas values, a self, an external environment, etc. The cerebral cortex acts as a guidance system, providing a context in which behavior and emotions can be directed accordingly. We therefore have what I call "systems of self-regulation," an internal interpretation system consisting of a self or personality, beliefs, values, ideas, opinions, defense mechanisms, habits, etc.

When it comes to interpreting others peoples feelings, motivations, and intentions, there is what believe to be a reciprocal nature between self and others. Self and others are more interconnected than we realize. For example, one who does not love their self, will not love those around him or her, but he/she will love selfishly, and try to hoard acts of admiration, love, etc from others (this, IMO, is part of what causes narcissistic personality disorder). More accurately (IMO) its about conditions, that is if someone's self love is conditional, their love towards others will also be based on conditions.... Someone who is compassionate and selfless towards others will also be compassionate and selfless towards their own self-image. Someone who is a perfectionist and critical towards others often applies the same criticism towards themselves. Someone who is excessively critical towards others but does not apply the same criticism towards themselves is suppressing self criticism. The things they criticize in others are things that remind them of their selves... therefore the excessive criticism is a way of suppressing self-reflection, as self reflection causes considerable emotional distress.

Also, we tend to assume that what other people consciously experience, is the same as our conscious experience... that they think, feel, and attend to things the same way we do. I believe that there are differences in conscious experience between human beings just as their are slight anatomical and physiological differences.

Conflicts are often caused by the incompatibility of interpretations between two or more people.

When we believe something to be true, it becomes true in the mind, regardless of consistency or inter-subjective verifiability. If I believe that demons are real, the brain will respond as though it is real, and I will feel the presence of demons and anxiety in accordance to that belief.

People believe in "truth" that is most convenient to them. They have an unconscious tendency to select convenient truths while ignoring unconvenient truths. Everyone has a bias, no matter how "objective" we try to be. Truth is interlinked with pain and pleasure. Pain averts us away from things, and pleasure attracts us towards certain things. Pain also averts us away from realizing aspects of ourselves, and is therefore conducive to a lack of self awareness.

 

[Willamena]

...and that is why I am given to saying that "truth" is relative, (to the understanding of the individual). Maybe though, I am a bit of an oddity because I generally don't think in terms of "truth". I am far more interested in what is, rather than

what I think of what is.

What is has the appearance of what is and so (here and now) is what is. What I think of what is has the appearance of what I think of what is, and so is what I think of what is when I think of what is.

While we think of the thought of a thing as a thing, they are not the same thing... until we step into the cloak of thought, and then they are the same. When we again step out of the cloak of thought, they are not the same. But too, we can shed the cloak of thought for the cloak of appearances by recognizing the appearance of a thought. Everything is appearances. Everything is as it appears, even (especially) the thought of thought (and the appearance of appearance).*

It's my understanding (though I may be wrong) that it doesn't matter what substance we take as the base substance of monism. What matters is that there is one substance --for me, it is appearance, the form, in whatever form it appears.



* This has the added benefit (as I see it) of allowing us to step out of "mind," which can be a very confusing context because of its association with thought, and into the objective world where we can recognize and speak of things as only existing.

 

[Willamena]

"Perspectivism" is also a centerpiece of the philosophical writings of Nietzsche.

From Genealogy of Morals:

Yes, you've said that often. I don't know if I'll ever find the time (or patience) to read up on the philosophies.

 

[brbubba]

...i.e., truth is relative.

So cynic, since truth can never be objective, can truth every truly exist at all?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I get involved in a lot of discussions about truth, and everyone has their own picture of it, and their picture of truth is the brush that paints the world, as they see it. Here's mine.

Each of us believe in a thing because to us it's true. Truth is what it appears to be, the appearance of truth. There is no other, grander truth, but for the appearance of truth.

We live in the moment. What appears to us is what is, each moment; that is what's true. This means that reality, too, is what it appears to be. And the world is what it appears to be. Each moment presents us with a world that is unique and true. (Even a dream moment has the appearance of real.)

I am, in a real sense, equating as true reality and the world-as-we-know-it as one. The world is here and now; what's real is here and now, as it appears in front of you; as "in front of you" appears to you; as "you" appear. (And it's not solipsism, which is a doubting of reality. It's just a picture.)

What's true is/composes "the real world" (objective reality) at any moment. Truth can be considered to "change" from moment to moment only in the sense that the prior moment (or the next), which is not yet true/real, is held in our imagination --on the other hand, in the sense that we regard as true only what is at any moment, the truth never really changes.

Comments? (Please note this is the discussion forum, not the debate forum.)

My view that your comments are false must be true!