...life can be translucent

Menu

Perspective vs truth

Y

yellowblue

Guest
As everyone sees and gathers answers to their queries in and of life from their perspective and perspective is limited in regard to human capacity and as such, limited capacity, what is truth? and how do you trust the imparted knowledge as truth?
 
C

candid

Guest
Deb, where the heck ya been? Nice to see you back. That's truth.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Well Candid, i'm a bit timid anymore and a bit lost to humbleness of not knowing. Thanks for the welcome back, it feels good!
 
C

candid

Guest
Aw, knowing's over rated anyway.

and thanks! He's my unknowing mentor.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
70
Only the very lucky ones find an unknowing mentor. It's where both truth and beauty come from.

I remember some true and beautiful things said by Deb...

Happy you're back!

LiSe
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
70
The answer of Yi is the imparted knowledge.. Mmm, I don't believe it is any knowledge unless my guts tell me it's true.
How? Dunno, maybe my guts do?

LiSe
 

jerryd

visitor
Joined
Feb 15, 1970
Messages
451
Reaction score
0
LiSe: Now this is what is called indepth understanding. When one cannot feel comfortable wirh an answer it is perhaps the truth is already known but supressed through ego or ignorance of what is known.
 

jerryd

visitor
Joined
Feb 15, 1970
Messages
451
Reaction score
0
Yellowblue; You are obviously a thinker.
Perspective always depends upon a position, in this case on understanding, and truth is also based upon understanding, but not necessarly from the same perspective so thay often crash, unless a basic set of ground rules are formatted before the discussion continues. Saves much time and anguish. If I say from my perspective the truth is such, and you can agree but from a different set of values then we are both in harmony but from different perspectives. Do you see?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
neurologically, the sense of 'truth' is wrapped up in territorial mapping - and so into concepts of self identity and ownership - the feeling develops into the notion of syntax, of 'correctness'.

The hierarchy present gives us personal truths, cultural truths, and species, aka universal, truths.

chris.
 

cal val

visitor
Joined
Apr 30, 1971
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
3
Deb...

Yo girl! I'm back in So Cal. I think about you often and really really want to get together. I'm so happy to see your post here.

Love what you said about "not knowing." The older I get and the more I learn, the more I know I don't know... and I like it that way. This girl looooves a good mystery.

Let's go watch iceplant bloom someplace and drink something potent together really soon.

Love,

Val
 

bradford_h

visitor
Joined
Nov 16, 1971
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
14
Hi Deb-
Sometimes the Yi authors gave us their opinions on such matters with a broad brush.
For Perspective, I'd look to Gua 20. For Truth, Gua 61.
Both play with the difficulties in finding objectivity, but both suggest that this might be useful.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Hi all,
FYI due to conflicts in my schedule and a slow absorption rate it takes a while for me to resond, but....

LiSe--
Thanks for the welcome and your words-- you have been a fountainhead of inspiration to me : )

Val--iceplant in bloom and a potent imbibe sounds good too!!

To all thanks for your input as they all seem to be pieces of the puzzle....LiSe's instinct, Jerryd's sense of perception, Chris's thoughts on association, and Brad's answers via YiJing.

Which kind of brings me back to my post. Seems like each of your inputs are perspective, and as such individual truths (or resolutions).

Maybe its a combo of all of this and what is predominant in our individual associations, and/or what has worked for each of us.

Jerryd said something about setting 'ground rules'... there are many "agreed" rules in life that come about in interaction with people, whether they're intimate relations or societal relations, but none of them (in my experience or thoughts) hold water for very long. The only rules that seem to be relevant and constant are natural laws.

So maybe truth only occurs within the bounds of natural laws, AND/OR maybe truth is only relevant on an individual basis, because what works is strictly individual...which brings us to what makes us individuals and is beyond the physical realm of being...

according to definition truth is:

The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

truth

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. truths (trthz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true. 3. Sincerity; integrity. 4. Fidelity to an original or standard. 5a. Reality; actuality. b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English trewthe, loyalty, from Old English trowth. See deru- in Appendix I.
SYNONYMS: truth, veracity, verity, verisimilitude These nouns refer to the quality of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty: ?We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences? (Charles Seymour). Veracity is adherence to the truth: ?Veracity is the heart of morality? (Thomas H. Huxley). Verity often applies to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth: ?beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities? (James Harvey Robinson). Verisimilitude is the quality of having the appearance of truth or reality: ?merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative? (W.S. Gilbert).

Is there a verb associated with truth???

knowledge:

The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

knowledge

PRONUNCIATION: nlj
NOUN: 1. The state or fact of knowing. 2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study. 3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned. 4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge. 5. Specific information about something. 6. Carnal knowledge.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English knoulech : knouen, to know; see know + -leche, n. suff.
SYNONYMS: knowledge, information, learning, erudition, lore1, scholarship These nouns refer to what is known, as through study or experience. Knowledge is the broadest: ?Science is organized knowledge? (Herbert Spencer). Information often implies a collection of facts and data: ?A man's judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it? (Arthur Hays Sulzberger). Learning usually refers to knowledge gained by schooling and study: ?Learning ? must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence? (Abigail Adams). Erudition implies profound, often specialized knowledge: ?Some have criticized his poetry as elitist, unnecessarily impervious to readers who do not share his erudition? (Elizabeth Kastor). Lore is usually applied to knowledge gained through tradition or anecdote about a particular subject: Many American folktales concern the lore of frontier life. Scholarship is the mastery of a particular area of learning reflected in a scholar's work: A good journal article shows ample evidence of the author's scholarship

Does this mean that we have to have a belief system in place before we can use any system that imparts knowledge (i.e., Yi Jing, Tarot, religions of the world, etc.) in that unless we are open to it, have the ability to "channel" the energy, we obviously can't be privy... I guess that's where perspective and individuality comes in.

Glad for all of your thoughts and thanks again.

Deb
 
C

candid

Guest
Wow, Deb, you came back with the big guns! I'm looking forward to the responses, and my own is cooking on the burner.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
deb, yes we DO have a belief system in place but it is vague and in the form of the set of all of our instincts. IOW our 'root' hypothesis re reality is in the form of generals. Our nurture then 'refines' things ;-)

The spoken/written word comes way AFTER the development of communication systems; words just help in being more precise in expression, but in that precision can be over-precise and so exclude acceptable perspectives rooted in our species-nature.

The FEELING that we associate with 'truth' comes from our focus on differentiating 'this from that', A from NOT-A, and so it is more 'noun' oriented. However, at the core level of meaning derivation, where we focus on differentiating/integrating - and so BEFORE the spoken/written words - we have qualities that allow us to have:

TRUTH expressed as differentiating
TRUTH expressed as integrating

The 'truth' as a whole
The 'truth' as a part
The 'truth' as an invarient relationship
The 'truth' as a varient relationship

There is thus 'yin' truth, 'yang' truth. In the formal structure of words there is:

noun - A TRUTH (object space)
verb - TO TRUTH (relational space)

A NATURAL property of our being is the nominalisation function - turning a verb into a known, a relating into a being (and visa versa). This property of differentiating/integrating is often not considered in formal language definitions where the 'drive' for precision means a bias to differentiating. The more PRECISE, the more UNIVERSAL we want to be so the more labels we create and so we move from a focus of relating to being and so lose contact with a lot of our nature! ;-))

SPECIALIST, serial, languages - and that means English or French etc etc will 'skew' the set of possible expressions of "Truthing" - where the core sense is in the form of a gerund and so a superposition of noun/verb where local CONTEXT will extract what is needed. (local grammars will distort things, an imposition of structure prior to fully understanding what is going on.

The IC is a book of 'ings', of gerunds such that CONTEXT will then collapse the meaning into a focus on being or doing.

Chris.
 
C

candid

Guest
deep breath...

For me the problem of truth revolves around ultimate truth: that final and big answer which sums up all truths. Since this enters into areas that some would call spiritual truth, it also becomes both subjective, relative and personal truth.

The one truth you mentioned which immediately brought a smile to my face is the truth of natural law. Natural law is that which is reliable and at least to some degree, predictable. These are tangible laws of cause and effect. But whether there is an underlying law and truth to these visible occurrences again becomes speculative.

Perhaps one way to tackle this is to divide linear truth and non-linear truth.

Linear truth is the appearance which is measurable by time and space, such as measuring the time it takes for the earth to revolve on its axis one time, or the time it takes to revolve around the sun. With these two coordinates of measuring time and space we can arrive at the acceptance of natural and linear truth. By creating a constant, we can also create the appearance of linear truth. For example: we can mark off a repeatable measurement and call it an inch, 12 inches make a foot, 3 feet makes a yard, and so forth. By measuring the time it takes to travel these distances we can also measure things like mile per hour. If we consume too many calories, we can also measure our waistline, and witness its expansion in time. Ugh. Anything which can be measured with time and/or space could be called linear truth. But linear truth can also be perceived without physically measuring it. We can observe the sun rising without knowing it?s distance or the time it takes to rise, for example. So then what is observable may also be called linear truth, even without using relative linear markers. It is an occurrence we can count on.

Non-linear truth are those things which require subjective cognition in order to observe or perceive. The stuff it?s made of isn?t tangible or measurable, except through the use of linear comparatives, such as predicting moods according to the stars or menstrual cycle, or whether the body becomes hungry. The fact that non-linear truths require personal cognition makes those truths no less real, but it does change the means by which it can measured, and therefore understood. This is the area of belief and faith. The way we come to calling a belief true is by testing the belief. For example, if we pray, and our prayer appears to be answered, we can then say that our prayers can change things. That becomes integrated into our own understanding of truth, though it is at least in part non-linear. The same could be said for self-psychology. If a mental affirmation is repeatedly supported, that manifests in measurable ways, and therefore also becomes integrated into a personal truth. The longer and more consistently these non-linear truths are set into effect, the more reliable and observable they become, and so we can come to the conclusion that these truths are linearly provable, but only through the use of personal cognition.

Ultimate truth is what is, in spite of all linear observations or cognitive realities. It is the truth within which all linear and non-linear truth exists. As such, it is not held to any fixed or regulated law or means of understanding. Rather than being a fixed truth, it lives and breathes, and I would even imagine it loves.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Hi there Chris,

words are simply labels that we use to communicate : ) and that concept gives birth to the spoken word, form ... and I like the words you use to describe the IC as a book of action and being, (an answer to my question about truth and verbs)--Thank you.

Would you agree that art and music are a more natural form of communication?

Your post has certainly touched on perspective--
can't see the trees or can't see the forest type of thing

and association, variations, derivatives....nothing original here type of thing.

Guess my quest is for a concept of truth separate from environmental influence and a definition of Yi Jing in that context.

An original intellegience that we contain but is originally separate from us..





Thanks for sharing Chris,

Deb
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Candid,

in as far as words are labels and a rude form of communication (wink) you certainly seemed to pull the pieces together: )

that "ultimate" or omniscient truth is the heart of my query. I guess if we look at the myriad philosophies it seems that perspective as a foundation separates mankind from the 'gods'and that in those philosophies there is an instinctive and perpetual search for our "creator" or a substantiation outside of ourselves. If we all started tabla rasa how did that search begin?

It's easier when we have an omniscient, onmipotent source to depend on and whether that exists is an individual perspective, and one that I personnaly adhere to.

still, doesn't our capacity to comprehend and render Yi's message (whatever the source) into something reliable seems a lofty goal given our limitations?


Deb
 

jerryd

visitor
Joined
Feb 15, 1970
Messages
451
Reaction score
0
Hello Deb if I may be bold and use you signed name. Inadvertently you have made my point about finding some set of ground rules. Truth is? many things qualify as truth at the same time and if we procede to speak on all of them at once it can become a real quagmire.
As for as an ultimate truth this also has its roots in humaness, a good vote is for the inate nature of Nature it's self. As we are a member in the class of natural things ( I think ) there may be reason to believe we may be seen as the ultimate answer to this question. It being only of concern to the human species, and only very few of them at best, then an answer must be avilable dont you think?

So Ultimate, being a lot like infinate, or if you will infinity, why not let the ultimate truth be "there is no ultimate truth" at least till concensus decides there is one.

If a spititual reasoning is one you wish to apply then this expands it quickly into the realm of imposibility of proof and circles it back into the world of definations of infinate truth and a lack of proof.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Hi Jerryd,

Please do use "Deb"

I hear you, and appreciate your comments. And agree that there is no debatable conclusion.

Still, there seems to be a common thread that runs through reasoning, even if it isn't easily discernable.


And I suppose my point is:

why consult Yi or any other source outside of one's perspective reasoning if one doesn't adhere to a belief in an omniscient intelligent source outside of one's self or outside of "humanity"?

It seems it would be at best a hit and miss crap shoot and better to answer your own questions...

Deb
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Candid,
I lost your email address when my computer crashed ages ago.

If you're inclined, drop a line to my profile contact...

Deb
 
C

candid

Guest
Deb, I read somewhere that the truth that can be named isn't the [ulimate] truth. Or something like that.

I've sent my email addy.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Thanks Candid--

It's great that we can all get together on this board and share with each other, isn't it : )

Deb
 

bradford_h

visitor
Joined
Nov 16, 1971
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
14
Candid-
That's the third line of the Daodejing
ming ke ming fei chang ming
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
>
> Would you agree that art and music are a more natural form of
> communication?
>

From a holistic/organic point of view, yes, but not from a precision point of view in that the REFINEMENT of a song or painting etc allows for the better expression of that song/painting. The pathway is thus organic to mechanistic and back to organic. Thus talking about the feelings associated with a song/painting is part of the development process of that song/painting. Issues come when the discussion drifts from its purpose to become an activity to get 'high' off the exchange - IOW we lose sight of the intent in refining for the 'buzz' of just 'talking' - aka socialising.

The other issue is where, in the refining we universalise the work and in doing so remove it from the context we prefer it to be in - in that being a universal it can also set its own context. As such the work can 'escape' you, take on a life of its own which can be 'fine' but also elicit a sense of 'loss' as well and so depression. That LOCAL experience also applies globally in the from of social collapse where families can lose their 'local' connections and so fragment - and individualisation does that.

Our emotions are tied-up with sensory harmonics - colours and chords. The mixing of either within themselves or across the modality can elicit organic experiences more so than mechanistic experiences. As such, emotion is the language of the species - all else is specialisation ;-)

That said, with the emergence of consciousness, so there is an increase in moving into the mechanistic and staying there due to all of the universals present - as labels, as 'bright lights'. With all of the differentiation comes access to technology, to do-it-yourself skill refinements and so an increase in self-governence; autonomy is the drive.

The problem is that the realm of universals is all 'disneyland', fun but can be lacking in depth due to the universal nature - a universal needs to be grounded in a LOCAL to elicit the FEELING of connectedness etc. and so the FULL SPECTRUM of experiencing the moment. (it is like a formula in Mathematics - it needs numbers to be 'meaningful' - thus E=MC^2 is a universal, but a film on Hiroshima more 'meaningful' - you 'get the picture' ;-))

That said, universals can create their own context (as corporations are starting to do - create their own worlds for their employees from birth to death!) - this reflects the fragmentation in that to be a universal demands diferrentiation from all else. In these sorts of worlds all is 'fine' from inside but things can look 'strange' when viewed from the outside! (fundamentalism is common in collectives focused on 'universals')

Overall, with the development of consciousness, and so a 'drive' to mediate/represent etc there is an increase in XOR states, thing-ness over AND states, relatedness. This shift reflects what happens when we differentiate too much - we introduce borders and so let loose what lives on them - complexity/chaos dynamics. That can be 'fun' but also energy-expending when not necessary and the fragmentation has affects on social interactions.

Thus the BENEFITS of serial communications a la words is in the precision. BUT, that precision is BEYOND that of our species such that we can move past our full nature and into an 'ideal' nature that is 'at odds' with reality - we then try and impose that ideal on reality and in doing so can stuff up ;-)

Consciousness can be too focused on the trees OR too focused on their REPRESENTATION - map is confused with territory, metaphor is taken literally - and we kill for that and our emotions become exaggerated in expression due to the universality and so elicits 'stronger' responses than are necessary.

The fragmentation we experience concentrates our nature as a social species into each of us - this reflects the becoming of an 'autonomous' entity and that is an issue for a social animal that we are as primates.

<snip>
>
> Guess my quest is for a concept of truth separate from environmental
> influence and a definition of Yi Jing in that context.
>

Then you seek universals. But universals are also labels - the word 'house' is a universal. The phrase 'MY house' grounds the universal. The IDM/ICPlus material is about the universal I Ching, free of local context other than our differentiating/integrating natures. Thus hex 02 is, universally, about contractive blending. THAT is the level of its universal nature, what it can represent, but the scope is HUGE and being huge is 'vague' - what I have labelled the "Language of the Vague" - BUT it is something you can FEEL.

(and so gets into candid's comment on the dao de jing's focus on what is said (a label) is not the thing.)

There is a thread on this site "The Species I Ching" that covers all of the expressions of the hexagrams in their 'universal' forms, IOW the generic feelings they represent. Those forms are derived from the self-referencing, the recursion, of differentiate/integrate - a dynamic we find at all levels of analysis operating across the universe - so there is a 'universal' truth if you like.

Chris.
 
C

candid

Guest
Brad, yup, I know. I wanted to address the question without direct reference to dao or yi jing.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Hi Chris,

I can only say that for the most part I do not agree with your analogies or definitions, but thanks for trying to express your theories.

Deb
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Deb,

re blending, bonding, bounding, and binding - not really 'theory' in that they emerge 'naturally' from neurodynamics in processing differentiating/integrating (WHAT/WHERE) - the empirical evidence is covered in the reference lists/further-reading etc on the IDM material where the traditional IC serves as a example of our creation of metaphors to describe the feelings. (IOW the material successfully predicts states and so is more than just 'theory' ;-))

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html (links to ref lists etc at the bottom of the page)

IOW you indicate a need to step out of the specialist box (trad IC) and so into what that box is within - a bigger box determined by our sensory systems ;-)

Since there is clear demonstration of the development of Mathematics from this general box, and so, by implication, association with all systems that use mathematics to describe themselves, we are working at the level of the universal - and so 'vague'.

If you do not agree with the materialist perspective then you are demonstrating a more 'idealist' perspective - but idealism IS rooted in the realm of universals in the form labels - and so YANG thinking with its focus on skill development, autonomy, on becoming a 'universal'.

The full spectrum, and so outside of immediate conscious awareness, is the dimension derived from recursion of idealist/materialist - and this dimension is represented in the metaphor of the 'natural' binary sequence derived from recursion of 'yin' (integrating)/'yang'(differentiating) ;-)

All else is a product of our major tool of mediation - our consciousness.

The increase in individual consciousness favours an increase in the sense of 'transcendence' - this is a natural product of neural dynamics operating out of the 'yang' realm.

If we split the binary sequence into two threads we have:

earth, mountain, water, wind
thunder, fire, lake, heaven


The top row is the path of yin/female
the bottom is the path of yang/male

the yang mindset is expressed in the yin line through the actions of water (rejection/rejecting issues) and wind (anticipation issues) - both have their roots in security seeking in a context that they have to coexist with - IOW all service is to the context. In the yang line so all service is to self and so to replace the existing with one of one's own.

Your expression suggests a frustration of some form, the solution to which may be to go and make your own context - to be more proactive.

good luck! ;-)

Chris.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top