I don’t know hot to state it more clearly: There’s nothing’s safe about truth. If you accept the truth, then sooner or later you will be confronted with something you wish wasn’t true and as such, you will be in fact exposed to danger and risk. Your well being might decrease, you might get depressed, or it may not affect you at all, it depends on the situation and on the person but it certainly isn’t safe.
You on the other hand, claim to prefer a lie if it entails happiness. Now that, is completely safe regardless of it being justifiable or not.
When I speak of truth, I speak of the way I have interacted with it up until this point. I’m trying to articulate what it has been to me, and why it has been that way.
It’s possible that truth isn’t the same for you, but I’ve yet to see any description that doesn’t reflect my view.
A point I’d like to make right off the bat can be expressed by a quote from another topic I posted.
[i]A muscle only grows when it is confronted by it’s (current) limitations. To expose oneself to one’s limits, is an honest act. A respectful act. In order for it to be productive, however, one must not only push, but rest. One must reflect on one’s limitations and let wounds heal with full knowledge, that they will soon be re-opened.
If one only pushes, one is running, and will eventually break due to irreparable damage. If one is always at rest, one’s strength will fade away until one can’t move except at the mercy of one’s environment. Both paths lead to the same end.
The process of growing, which one desires, demands both rest and strain. If one doesn’t recognize the process, one may lose sight…[/i]
The way you describe truth to me represents a constant push, which I interpret as running (avoiding) from rest (present), which for some would preserve their sense of control (safety).
I can say for me, truth was safety. If I can tolerate and embrace truth, what could hurt me? If I let truth continually wound me, I will adapt and be left with an indifference to wounds. That is as safe as I could imagine.
You’ve described what truth can do to an individual, and I agree completely, but I compared to an addiction ( to drugs) because whilst a person’s intent when taking a drug is safety, there can be consequences or things that are the lesser of two ‘evils’.
If people said, I’m going to embrace truth because it will depress me, lower my sense of well being and expose me to danger and risk, which I have a soft spot for - Then, I may say to you, perhaps safety isn’t their intent.
I must step back and ask you, why do you embrace truth? Are you capable of ignoring it?
My intent is to focus on the things I value. I don’t care for truth, that is why I’m willing to let it go. I want to be satisfied, and truth does not satisfy me. I’m trying to embrace my bias, instead of fight it.
Doesn’t the satisfaction you value rely on your being at the right place at the right time? An opportunity has to be in place for there to be a satisfaction, unless you have the extraordinary ability to be satisfied in any circumstance. Are you satisfied now? I’d say there comes times when you think there is something more satisfying to do than what you’re doing at the moment. Boredom seems to be a widely common experience. Anyway, if we see the reality of what is happening now as an element of truth, then reality has to present us the opportunity to experience physical satisfaction.
Boredom is a bottomless pit. As long as you think that there is something more interesting, more purposeful, more meaningful to do than what you are actually doing, you have no way of freeing yourself from boredom.
And how is this not completely safe ? Come on man. I’m not saying you’re wrong about wanting what you want but don’t bullshit me saying that it isn’t safe…
It makes sense to me, although I don’t 100% agree with it.
If one wants ONLY for what can be within his grasp (thus required to know the truth of what that might be), one cannot suffer the desire of wanting what he cannot obtain. That is basic Buddhism.
The significant distinction comes to mind when considering the needs of survival and the purpose of life. Such realization causes one to have to presume what can be obtained without full knowledge. That means that errors will occur and the suffering of trying to obtain what cannot be gained will occur.
The resolution is that one must forgive oneself (and others) and adapt to newly discovered possible and impossible tasks such as to minimize presumption and the suffering that it brings (basic Christian philosophy).
“It is what it is”, why want for what cannot be?
Or the older Judist phrase; “The Lord is my Shepard. I shall not want.”
“Lord” in this case means “who/whatever is guiding me through reality”.
It’s more a question of what is “real” and has substance for a person.
One would lose their core self if they opted for the matrix.
The LIE and and the DELUSION of HAPPINESS at some point will come crashing down on you. Too much [happiness] or too much of a good thing can also lead to boredom and/or a lack of real meaning in one’s life.
If you would rather live in the matrix and think yourself to be happy, how is that “true” happiness? It is an illusion and it is fleeting…like a drug. And then what happens if there is this massive POWER OUTAGE?
I would much rather be out there in the “real” world despite what it might have come to be, despite how bleak and dark and ashen it has become - how futile it seems - and face that and struggle through that and re-build and change the world. There is a kind of happiness in experiencing THAT - which being self-indulgent and hedonist will not bring about. As someone I know once said - WHAT WE NEED IS A NEW KIND OF HEDONISM.
Happiness DOES come from a sense of satisfaction - of doing something worthwhile, something meaningful…but it doesn’t necessarily soar to the heights - it flows deeply within.
If you don’t care for Truth, you will never find “real” happiness. And you WILL BE living on borrowed time.
Believe it or not, the truth can set us free but it takes a lot to pull us away from those shackles which we don’t even see.
It’s hard for me to follow the path of thought that you took when you found a relation between the topic and that picture. I’ll try, but I have little hope of guessing the context.
A distinguishing aspect of the picture, is that the figure lacks distinction. They have no boundaries, and the features that are visible are blurred and smudged.
From this, I see a person that isn’t certain of much beyond the conflict of ones gaze.
Who is the figure? The truth seeker? The value seeker? Both?
You’ve a refreshing way of expressing yourself on these forums… I believe you have a clear message to express, but I’m afraid I have trouble translating it.
Satisfaction (the free dictionary) - The fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite.
Satisfaction is the absence of desire, need or appetite. Therefore, one need only address one’s desires (values) in order to obtain satisfaction.
Through the pressures of survival, our values have become aligned with what enables our survival. The things that enable our survival and the things that satisfy us are one in the same. We are alive, therefore, satisfaction is available, if it weren’t, we’d be dead.
The drive within us, is what allows us to see opportunities that could be missed without the drive. We discover opportunities that for another, may be dismissed as impossibility.
Am I satisfied with all aspects of my existence? No. Am I satisfied with the rate of progress I’ve been making? Yes. Satisfaction is relative to context/scope.
If we say we have multiple drives that need to be addressed, boredom comes when we’re ignoring our desire for creativity and stimulation, whilst addressing another need that’s already been satisfied.
If I’m starving, I wont be bored of eating. If I’m full, I’ll likely be bored of eating. (I don’t care for the taste of food, so the creativity of unique dishes wouldn’t satisfy (appeal) and therefore motivate me to continue eating once I’m full.)
I believe reality does present us with opportunity, and I acknowledge Truth as means to discover said opportunities.
Unless you embrace and satisfy your desires based on priority instead of trying to ignore them, as though that weren’t a desire within itself being satisfied.
James, the title of topic alone does not give much context to my position. I purposefully did this, because I believed those who hold truth in high esteem, would be provoked by it. I want to communicate with these people, therefore, I provoke them.
I provoke you.
However, I have expressed to you that I don’t dismiss truth completely. I gave you context to the title. Let me repeat this for good measure.
and I quote:
When I said I don’t care for truth, I meant I don’t care for truth as an end in itself. I don’t care for truth for the sake of truth. It is a means to an end, yes, and for that it has a level of value, but only as a tool.
To this I would add, The truth will set you free. If we value freedom, it is rational to embrace truth. Just as if we value a clean house, we would embrace a vacuum cleaner. We value a vacuum cleaner as a tool. However, most of us aren’t satisfied merely by the ownership of a vacuum.
I compare truth to a vacuum cleaner. U MAD? (Forgive me - for arrogance and humor)
I have not advocated the complete dismissal of truth, I have tried to highlight it’s level of priority within my mind, and am questioning it’s priority within the minds of others, and what it represents to them.
If this is what you meant, I agree. I don’t believe I am though.
PS. I enjoyed reading your response to Volchok. I made another thread that I think is a reaction to some information you’d given me in the past. Don’t know if you read it, but I’ll link for anyone interested. Click here.
No bullshit? I think you’re offended and defensive. Can my message get through your defenses? Don’t know, I’m trying to be as straight with you as I know how.
You say I’m bullshitting you, so I ask you, what do you think would motivate me to bullshit you? Do you think it’s realistic that I’m here just trying to fuck with you for pleasure?
In the first topic I made at these forums, I posted a goal of mine was to share information learned with others and to grow from that interaction, and with that, learn more. I feel like I’m expressing ideas to you, and you’re pushing me into a corner, removing all space for me to communicate with you, and saying “No, I wont have any of it”.
If you’re not interested in hearing me out, fair enough, we can agree to disagree, but cutting me down isn’t going to help your cause.
Do I want to safely (consistently) find satisfaction? Yes. I don’t care for conflict.
@Arcturus Descending
To me, our desires seem closer to us than truth. Who denies their hunger? Very few, and if they do? They’ll probably die. Who denies the truth of another? One in every two. What happens if they deny your truth? Death? Not very likely.
I think people lose themselves in abstract truth. They lose family, friends, hope, happiness, satisfaction in the name of ‘Truth’. Truth is but one more web, one more matrix. There’s no more integrity in choosing that matrix over another, for the decision to do so, is based (nested) in a closer (larger) matrix. That of desires.
In the first post, I stipulated that if one chose the lie, there would be no repercussions. You’re saying, ‘But there will be repercussions’. It’s a hypothetical, and I think it illustrates how a huge selling factor of truth is it’s consistency. If it didn’t have this, or if a lie did have this, then one must re-evaluate what truth is to them.
With that in mind, would you like to answer what is truth to you beyond it’s consistency?
As for boredom, refer to my response to finishedman.
I’d like you to elaborate on this. What is this happiness that you feel in pushing/dragging yourself through ashes to a place you want to be? Is it a testament to the capacity/potential of people?
Why would you not want to live in a changed world without all the climbing if you’ve spent all your life climbing and feel you’ve learnt all there is to know about climbing? Do you feel that way? I do.
You speak as though all desire and values that I advocate would be shallow and quick fixes. I would not describe my values in such a light, I agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t believe my position is mutually exclusive with this.
Refer to my reply to James S Saint for my position on truth. (I don’t disregard Truth completely.
Refer to my reply to finishedman on my position of truth’s capacity. (I agree)
Many of you will slight me for my expression in regards to truth, but what few of you will see, is that my expression is very honest and truthful, thereby, validating a level of respect I have for truth and my willingness to work within it’s constraints.
Today I traveled on a train. On the journey, I thought to myself how I dislike the journey. I wondered to myself, why do I dislike the journey? Well, it’s because there’s distance between myself and the things I value.
I’m here somewhere in the middle, leaving something I value and heading towards something I value, and I wish both places were together. What if the journey abruptly stops right now, where will I be?
Stranded away from the things I value, and stuck in a place I have no interest for.
Then it occurred to me, people often say that we are alone. Everyone is truly alone. Given this, look how we live our lives. We rush between places we care about, and ignore all other information.
If we are all alone, why are we so keen to immerse ourselves in environments that suit our taste? Is that not a form of dishonesty? If we’re all alone, the environment outside of us can’t be real, and therefore, can’t have value if it isn’t considered or connected to ourselves.
But who accuses family of being dishonest? Who accuses love and respect of being dishonest? Who accuses compassion of being dishonest?
Aren’t these things held above ‘truth’? Don’t we, without a blink of an eye, dismiss any question concerning their integrity?
If this is the case, then we already are willing to let ‘truth’ slip, we’re just not prepared to admit it.
In case of blurred bounderies, I refer to what James said about the presumption of unrealistic expectation as muddling the connection between existence and goals. The pictures can be more clearly focused when the presumptions become seen for what they are.
There is no problem with our present life. For thought there seems to be one because it extracts certain knowledge out of past pleasures and pains, compares the present with it, passes judgments, avoids the present by concocting a future and pursuing it. But for the comparisons that thought makes there is no problem with our life as it is; and there is no other life. It is precisely our thought of a better state that prevents us from coming to terms with our life as it is.
There is an extraordinary peace that is there already. What makes it difficult for you to live at peace with yourself is the creation [of the idea] of what you call “peace,” which is totally unrelated to the harmonious functioning of this body. When you free yourself from the burden of reaching out there to grasp, to experience, and to be in that reality, then you will find that it is difficult to understand the reality of anything. You will find that you have no way of experiencing the reality of anything, but at least you will not be living in a world of illusions. You will accept that there is nothing, nothing that you can do to experience the reality of anything, except the reality that is imposed on us by the society. We have to accept the reality as it is imposed on us by the society because it is very essential for us to function in this world intelligently and sanely. If we don’t accept that reality, we are lost. We will end up in the loony bin. So we have to accept the reality as it is imposed on us by the culture, by society or whatever you want to call it, and at the same time understand that there is nothing that we can do to experience the reality of anything. Then you will not be in conflict with the society, and the demand to be something other than what you are will also come to an end.
The goal that you have placed before yourself, the goal which you have accepted as the ideal goal to be reached, and the demand to be something other than what you are, are no longer there. It is not a question of accepting something, but the pursuit of those goals which the culture has placed before us, and which we have accepted as desirable, is not there any more. The demand to reach that goal also is not there any more. So, you are what you are.
When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what you are isn’t there any more, you are not in conflict with yourself. If you are not in conflict with yourself, you cannot be in conflict with the society around you. As long as you are not at peace with yourself, it is not possible for you to be at peace with others. Even then there is no guarantee that your neighbors will be peaceful. But, you see, you will not be concerned with that. When you are at peace with yourself, then you are a threat to the society as it functions today. You will be a threat to your neighbors because they have accepted the reality of the world as real, and because they are also pursuing some funny thing called “peace”. You will become a threat to their existence as they know it and as they experience it. So you are all alone – not the aloneness that people want to avoid – you are all alone.
Social construction of reality is contextual. It would be good if this was a simple proposition. They are varied, and hence reality is no simple matter. We do have to move in and out of our safe peaceful place, even if it's an inner peace we are talking about. At those times we may be said to retain an inner peace, but with a socially imposed reality being a functional necessity, it comprmises us. I think the trend has been a paradigmne shift, away from the core of the personality into the periphery. This way, the implication suggests a different reality among philosophers, who are more able to externalize their values.
Joe, I have noticed a pattern. Every time I disagree with you, you claim that I’m offended. Maybe it’s my style of writing, I don’t know. But I’m not.
Yes you are bullshitting me and perhaps more importantly bullshitting yourself. Anyone who thinks accepting the truth as opposed to a lie is safe, doesn’t seem to have thought before having spoken. Like I said before, this is the stuff religions are made of.
True or not, presumption is the seed of all disharmony both within and around.
Don’t do it if you don’t have to. And if you have to, then you are not doing it.
So, reality, as viewed in a socially constructed context, should be seen as purposeful and functional. Not as truth as a whole to be viewed as a result of that reality. And if we receive demands and comply with societal standards, we do so for its purposes only. Satisfaction can be experienced through accommodation to this demand. Striving and competition could be inside a person and society provides the arena.
For those who cannot fit themselves into any facet of a societal value system, reality and truth need not be seen in a social context at all. Reality and truth, if such a thing, might be moved to a more personal status where satisfaction can be experienced through the function of individual point of reference. The reference point is still in a world as it is and not in a world distorted by thought’s predilections.
