Universal Truth

[Ðanisty]

I was reading through the Gnostic thread and universal truth was mentioned. I don't believe in universal truth and I'm guessing most people here also do not. I'm not starting this conversation to debate it because I'm going to assume that we're beyond that and because I want to get to the actual point of the thread. I have found that disproving universal truth is the hardest part of debating religion with others and one of the most necessary to get the point across. I want to argue successfully for Luciferianism, but I can't do that unless I can convince others that what they know to be the truth is not fact, but actually just perception. From what I've seen though, universal truth is the concept they are least willing to let go of.

Have the rest of you found this to be the case? If so, what methods have you found useful in battling universal truth? Obviously, some people are never going to let go no matter how you try to explain it, but there are a lot of people out there who are capable of understanding if we can break the 'truth' barrier. Understand that I am not asking how to convert people because I'm against that concept entirely. What I'm looking for is a way to help others understand Luciferianism because they won't respect it if they don't understand it. I'm looking for ways to actually pave the road for open-mindedness.

[Phosphoros]

I have also found this to be the biggest wall I've faced when talking with people about their beliefs. Even so-called "open minded" people have a tendancy to believe their beliefs are Truth and the only one possible, especially with regards to intrinsic subjects such as morality. I've never found a good way to try and subvery this either. People only seem to understand it if they are naturally ready to understand it - and most people never will be. Sadly.

[AppleJack]

if you can show there is more than one logical and acceptable way of understanding something then you also prove there is no such thing as a single universal truth.

I like vanilla and my wife likes Chocolate. If we see something as small as Ice cream so differently how can the entire earth see something as big as truth the same? Answer: They can't without lying to theirself.

[Arcadios]

Are you talking about universal truth when dealing with religion or other matters?

I'm more humanist-- the truth is only the truth as you see it. I've always wondered, though, if there isn't a spirit or something that manifests itself as whatever people imagine. If that doesn't make sense, I'll put it this way: I wonder if, when you die, you go wherever you want or believe you'll be going, and appear as whoever you think will be there. Say you're a believer in Asatru and you die in battle; will you go to Valhalla because that's where you want to or believe you'll go?

[frater luciferi]

truth? its got to be odvious. The truth of religion is that the truth is commodified and repackaged-but in the kybalion it states that truth comes in degrees i guess. Theres a difference between truth and prejudice or belief. The truth is fact undeniable, prejudice of belief ie faith is something that is often blindly accepted. Thats really as much a difference as faith vs. works.

Truth is reality, and reality is mallable through the prizm of perspective as related to the facts at hand. A classic example is the case where the church maintained that the universe revolves around the earth, which is ironic because egyptians already knew that the earth revolves around the sun, hell even the babylonian astrologers. Which may relate to truth vs. theology which is often the case.

I have written an essay on truth below -

http://www.sitesled.com/members/americanbomemian/philosophy/perils%20of%20orthodoxy.htm

you'd think it was an easy thing to box in would'nt you? but quite often it seems one is put in a adversarial positiion as far as trying to bring the truth out. the truth is hardly profitable mind you and often organizations that are founded on principles of truth-by the prpphetic magus's such as buddha or jesus or mohammed etc. etc. often start with an exeplary example of someone who had stood for truth-but at the end in which his work was eventually "commodified" and institutionalized as a institution of authority-

say for exampy buddhism- which has so greatly added on to the initial teachings of buddha that it contradicts his example in a lot of ways. Christianity does the same! and especially as how the theology stands. But the key thing is that even if these people were'nt real that they told the truth and it made huge ripples in the stream of the collective concious of humanity.

unfortunately the truth seems to be diluted in the end. It always seems to end that way lol.

[TLF]

If so, what methods have you found useful in battling universal truth?

In science most modern thinkers stray from the Positivism invented by Auguste Comte - in many senses it is outdated. The Positivistic idea of an absolute and empirical truth was an ideal - but no more than that. The key is what questions you ask to that "truth" or to the empirical data. It is the question which determines its validity to a scientific approach.

Read up on positivism and the criticism against it and you'll find quite a few good tools on how to battle the fundamentalist view.

[Xner]

I think the idea that there is no absolute truth is an absurd one. However, reality as we know it is largely subject to individual perception, thus making perceived truth rather far removed from objective reality, and concensus reality even further removed.
One thing that does seem to be nearly universal among those who have long sought Truth is the incorporation of Advaita, or monism, into one's cosmology.
As a former friend often said to me, religion (or applied here, Truth) is like a car wreck...everybody witnessed it, but from a different angle, and each has a slightly different account to report to the police at the scene of the accident. All witnesses observed the same event, but none actually saw the same thing.
Such is the case with perceived truths. We all have the ability to observe it, but we'll all organize it into a personal schema in vastly different ways.

[frater luciferi]

hmm, i guess i could of just written a sentence- all is the dao, and the dao is not definable by launguage.

[hayabusa]

As a former friend often said to me, religion (or applied here, Truth) is like a car wreck...everybody witnessed it, but from a different angle, and each has a slightly different account to report to the police at the scene of the accident. All witnesses observed the same event, but none actually saw the same thing.Wow! That's the arguement I use against anyone's beliefs, too!
I have a question though. If we say there are no universal truths, isn't that a universal truth? Ugh, makes my head hurt.

[Xner]

I've said for years "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes".

[Phosphoros]

I think there are certain truths which are pretty much universal, such as "everything happens for a reason" (causality).

[Xner]

I'm sure that on some level, even causality is rendered fallacy.

[m1thr0s]

It seems as though this topic is actually sort of asking for strategies that may be useful in combatting the fallacy of universal truth. One of the best strategies I have found consists of asking pointed questions, though you have to be patient with this and occasionally people will simply ignore you. In that case you may have to be a bit more direct. But the reason it works is that it forces people to reevaluate their hidden assumptions for the purpose of presentation and if you can get people to critique their own ideas you are almost always better off than just saying...I think this makes no sense etc...

People typically have a lot invested in their notions of universal truth so are usually prepared to defend these ideas to the death...thus the key is indirection...since ultimately time and logic are already on your side. The thing is finding some way to get people to do a double-take on their own assertions.

I have tried it both ways though and on occasion experienced success with either. If you confront something head-on, you have to be willing to give a person room to recant with dignity. Otherwise even though you may win the battle, the war will still be lost with them as an individual...not much victory in this...

m1thr0s

[Malachi]

I think there is an absolute truth. I believe there is another side that is against it and wants true freedom from it, to do what it wants. I'm with the latter. The absolute won't let that happen and I find that just selfish. Can't we all be Gods? Whatever test we were given I've turn a blind eye to. If I'm not accepted into this "great truth" so be it.
Delete me.
At least I had my fun.

[m1thr0s]

I think that certain branches of science might allow for the idea of absolute truth within very well defined guidelines but I would have to check my facts on this. It seems that mathematics might aknowledge certain absolute truths, contingent upon the universe being as it is...or rather not being some other type of universe etc...

but I am not sure if this is absolute truth or simply objective truth that it allows for so I need to brush up on all this type of lingo. To some extent I operate within my own definitions of absolute truth and to that extent I do accept them as such...but these are only absolute in a relative sort of way...lol...

For instance...in the I Ching, it is only mathematically possible for there to be 64 hexagrams before you run into mathematical duplications or else break format in some way. This is an absolute truth, relative to bigrammal hexagrams. Is it not? If it isn't, maybe someone can tell me what kind of subjectivity could alter these facts without being deranged or otherwise illusional so far as THIS universe is concerned...

So I have to keep an open mind about absolute truth to some extent and I wonder that this isn't where the problem creeps in for others as well...when we say we are "beyond absolute truth" I know what is meant by that statement but I also wonder at the same time how completely true that really is. Doesn't this ultimately imply we are also beyond the fixed laws of physics itself? Is that really true for any of us in terms of practical reality? I am not so sure it is...

m1thr0s

[Chella]

I know this thread hasn’t been active in a while but the topic of truth is something I have been thinking a lot about lately so I though I write a little on my current understanding on the subject. I think there are two categories in which truth can be placed: Relative Truth and Absolute Truth. For something to be an article of Absolute Truth it must have as its nature the qualities of Permanence and Eternality. Anything which changes or is subject to change is not truth, because then which is the real truth-the state it was in before or the state it has just transformed into? Also for something to be Absolute Truth it must function on all the planes of existence or levels of reality, i.e. the mental, astral/emotional and physical as well as whatever is beyond. Thus currently I believe that for anything to qualify as Absolute Truth it must:

1. Be permanent in its state, that is it must have always remained the same in its history, remain the same in the present and will always remain the same for eternity
2. It must exist and function on all planes of existence-each and every single one

Relative truth on the other hand functions on only one or two of the planes of existence-not on all of them. However in the planes in which they do function they are solid reality or atleast for the most part. Even then relative truth is not permanent. For example the law of gravity is a definite reality-no one can argue about this. However from the absolute point of view the law of gravity is not real. Because it only functions on the physical plane, on the astral plane for example gravity does not exist. But even if we were to take only the physical plane into consideration-even then gravity would not be an article of absolute truth. This is because though most persons are subject to this law, not all are. There are some yogis who through their mastery over Pranayama has gotten the siddhis (occult power) of levitation, they can render there body light enough to actually float in the air. But this is not the only way through which one can escape gravity’s sphere of influence. Airplanes, and other such flying machines also make this possible, thus the law of gravity is not flawless in its influence and thus is not Absolute Truth, it is therefore Relative Truth. Relative Truth because it still holds some truth in reality-most persons are subject to its influence.

Even the law of karma is not Absolute Truth, neither is the influence of the zodiac and the elements or the laws of time, space and causation. Though most persons are subject to these laws of relative truth still the enlightened person is above them, he is not subject to follow them or be influenced by them.

Honestly I think we really know very little if any articles of Absolute Truth, however I think such a thing exists though it may be out of our present comprehension. Perhaps Absolute Truth can never be put into intellectual terms or conveyed in such a manner. I have used the following analogy to make myself understand this. Think of Absolute Truth or the absolute source (the emanator or God) as an entire ocean and think of your mind as a cup. You can only hold a pint or two of the water of this entire ocean-that is the most you can understand, the rest is out of your comprehension. But I believe that although Absolute Truth cannot be intellectually understood it can be experienced completely. You can turn your “cup” or mind into water and then you can mix with the ocean-then you will be able to know Absolute Truth because you have merged yourself with it. At the moment it seems to me that we can never know Absolute Truth unless we use Relative Truth to get there. We as intelligent human beings have the instinct to always want what is best or what is ultimately true. So it is understandable that we want to chase after Absolute Truth and not even take Relative Truth into consideration. But wanting this is to put the cart before the horse. Just because the law of gravity is not absolute truth doesn’t mean I can jump out the sixth story window and not be affected. We have to adhere to Relative Truth for the sake convenience.

Absolute is never changing, its nature is and remains One. Perceptions on the other hand are illusionary, whereas the actual state of things/reality is objective, perceptions are subjective, distorted by personal prejudices. If I were to hold a banana in front of three people, one would say that’s the greatest food in the world, another would say its terrible and yet another would say it doesn’t matter. So what is the banana really? Is it great, terrible or indifferent, the answer is neither. Unfortunately most people seem to hold their perceptions as reality. When you ask them why, all they can say is “it just is”. I think when something becomes habit people tend not to question it anymore-this may just be the cause of all worldly and internal conflicts.

There is a fable of a king who didn’t want to get his feet dirty so he ordered the whole kingdom to be laid with leather. But upon hearing there was not enough leather to fill every street in the kingdom with he became distressed. That is when a wise advisor said “instead of covering every street why not just cover your feet” and hence the invention of shoes. Likewise we don’t need to change the entire world in order to be happy or cease our suffering, all we need to do is change our perception of how we see the world to achieve the same end. I think most people suffer because they never question if the way they see the world is actually reality-they tend to baselessly accept it as such. If this was true than we would have quite a few billion versions of reality-like the banana, reality is neither one of the many perceptions. Reality or Absolute Truth is like the sun, though its image may be distorted at times by clouds and fog, the sun itself is left untouched and unchanged. The sun is the Absolute Truth, our perceptions are the clouds-they keep us from realizing the actual state of things.

Personally I think it is fruitless and unnecessary to try to do too much research into Absolute truth. There have been men thousands of years ago who have realized Self and there are men who realize Self today and there will be men who do the same in the far future. Though today there are much more information and metaphysical revelations than there were many years ago that didn’t keep men from fulfilling there Divine Right. Infact I think delving too deeply in theoretical study can actually be a hindrance. I am currently reading a book on Tibetan Buddhism and in the book the author asked his Lama why people in the east seems to make far greater progress than westerners. And the Lama’s response was that westerners seem to be obsessed and preoccupied with political correctness and theoretics instead of actual practice. Though it may seem foolish and even sad to us to know that there are actually people who worship gods while actually believing the myths behind them as actual reality. The fact is they through there Bhakti actually make it-actually transcend duality while many of us are too busy with intellectual correctness. In the end I think all that matters is fulfilling the end goal, how you do it doesn’t matter the least bit as long as it works. “If it works its true” this is actually a cosmic law in itself. So I think (for the moment atleast) that to have some theoretical understanding of then nature of truth is important as it forms a base from which to commence work but ultimately accurate beliefs are unnecessary to fulfill the spiritual objective.

[Naomi]

Because it only functions on the physical plane, on the astral plane for example gravity does not exist.

Scientific understanding of gravity is very limited. They know it exists but no one knows how it works. Science also tells us that the human brain cannot fully comprehend the true nature of reality due to the way we evolved...at least that's how the theory goes.

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that gravity is not at work in the upper planes. Because from my perspective it is there, it is just functioning under parameters different from the plane we reside at.

Is it not possible that the magicians you spoke of are not escaping gravity, but understanding it?

Though it may seem foolish and even sad to us to know that there are actually people who worship gods while actually believing the myths behind them as actual reality. The fact is they through there Bhakti actually make it-actually transcend duality while many of us are too busy with intellectual correctness.


No I do not think it seems foolish or sad at all. What you seem to be saying is it is sad and foolish, but it works? I'm not sure so perhaps you would like to clarify. On the contrary, worship or puja, which is a good Hindu term for it is a great way to attain understanding. We do the same to other humans. A fan of death metal who worships Napalm Death to come to a greater understanding of the meaning of hate and brutality. A fan of the Dalai Lama who seeks to understand compassion and happiness by buying all of his works in print and travelling to his speeches.

These are all a form of worship.

With such a limited understanding of the true nature of reality, undeniable in both science, religion and provable by the very existence of occultism, are we the ones who can proclaim with absolute confidence that intelligences only lie in what we can percieve?

[Dragon]

My partner and I were discussing truth one day. I feel that simply put, truth is subjective, fact is objective. So, based on that position....

If the statement is "Reality is subjective", then that in and of itself is an objective reality.

Juxtapostionally the statement "Reality is objective" is a subjective statement.

Ok Batman, Which is the truth...and which is the fact?

Dao Te.

~D~

[Amur]

I had an experience about absolute truth. It kind of 'ruined' my life :laugh: Though because of the nature of it, it's a secret :laugh:

Anyway, I do like to see some universal truths in geometry itself. Now that someone has noticed geometrical tendencies in the movements of celestial bodies in conjunction with each other, it brings up a whole new field. I also believe that the same 'truths' resonate with the human geometrics, which in turn might or might not cause the human face to become beautiful or ugly from the face musculature already. Often when looking at elder people who have lived a good life, one can see the Beauty all over their face musculature patterns. This in turn I believe corresponds to their internal world imposed upon the external world and what choices/beliefs they've made. I do believe that it touches upon the human archetype design whereas 'good' qualities (and all tastes, even extremely bitter) makes a face musculature that touches upon higher beauty.

Demonic attributes show the same way in the human face. Looking at how demonic properties seem to govern most of the world, very many seem to have these attributes printed directly on their face. It's all there in the face. Like a star-chart :laugh:

[Oblio]

I was thinking about truth (and contradiction) in another thread, and a piece from Hofstadter's GEB struck me as particularly relevant, so I thought I'd share it...

I'm sure the idea isn't all that revelatory to you guys, but still :D

>>>Chromatic Fantasy, And Feud<<<
Tortoise: Ho there, Achilles. I was just thinking of you as I splashed around in the pond.

Achilles: Isn’t that curious? I was just thinking of you, too, while I meandered through the meadows. They’re so green at this time of year…

Tortoise: You think so? It reminds me of a thought I was hoping to share with you. Would you like to hear it?

Achilles: Oh, I would be delighted. That is, I would be delighted as long as you’re not going to try to snare me in one of your wicked traps of logic, Mr. T.

Tortoise: Wicked traps? Oh, you do me wrong. Would I do anything wicked? I’m a peaceful soul, bothering nobody and leading a gentle herbivorous life. And my thoughts merely drift among the oddities and quirks of how things are (as I see them). I, humble observer of phenomena, plod along and puff my silly words into the air rather unspectacularly, I am afraid. But to reassure you about my intentions, I was only planning to speak of my Tortoise-shell today, and as you know, those things have nothing – nothing whatsoever – to do with logic!

Achilles: Your words DO reassure me, Mr. T. And, in fact, my curiosity is quite piqued. I would certainly like to listen to what you have to say, even if it is unspectacular.

Tortoise: Let’s see… how shall I begin? Hmm… What strikes you most about my shell, Achilles?

Achilles: It looks wonderfully clean!

Tortoise: Thank you. I just went swimming and washed off several layers of dirt which had accumulated last century. Now you can see how green my shell is.

Achilles: Such a good healthy green shell, it’s nice to see it shining in the sun.

Tortoise: Green? It’s not green.

Achilles: Well, didn’t you just tell me your shell was green?

Tortoise: I did.

Achilles: Then, we agree: it is green.

Tortoise: No, it isn’t green.

Achilles: Oh, I understand your game. You’re hinting to me that what you say isn’t necessarily true; that Tortoises play with language; that your statements and reality don’t necessarily match; that –

Tortoise: I certainly am not. Tortoises treat words as sacred; Tortoises revere accuracy.

Achilles: Well, then, why did you say that your shell is green, and that it is not green also?

Tortoise: I never said such a thing; but I wish I had.

Achilles: You would have liked to say that?

Tortoise: Not a bit. I regret saying it, and disagree wholeheartedly with it.

Achilles: That certainly contradicts what you said before!

Tortoise: Contradicts? Contradicts? I never contradict myself. It’s not part of Tortoise-nature.

Achilles: Well, I’ve caught you this time, you slippery fellow, you. Caught you in a full-fledged contradiction.

Tortoise: Yes, I guess you did.

Achilles: There you go again! Now you’re contradicting yourself more and more! You are so steeped in contradiction it’s impossible to argue with you!

Tortoise: Not really. I argue with myself without any trouble at all. Perhaps the problem is with you. I would venture a guess that maybe you’re the one who’s contradictory, but you’re so trapped in your own tangled web that you can’t see how inconsistent you’re being.

Achilles: What an insulting suggestion! I’m going to show you that you’re the contradictory one, and there are no two ways about it.

Tortoise: Well, if it’s so, your task ought to be cut out for you. What could be easier than to point out a contradiction? Go ahead – try it out.

Achilles: Hmmm… Now I hardly know where to begin. Oh… I know. You first said that (1) your shell is green, and then you went on to say that (2) your shell is not green. What more can I say?

Tortoise: Just kindly point out the contradiction. Quit beating around the bush.

Achilles: But-but-but… oh, now I begin to see. (Sometimes I am so slow-witted!) It must be that you and I differ as to what constitutes a contradiction. That’s the trouble. Well, let me make myself very clear: a contradiction occurs when somebody says one thing and denies it at the same time.

Tortoise: A neat trick that. I’d like to see it done. Probably ventriloquists would excel at contradictions, speaking out of both sides of their mouth, as it were. But I’m not a ventriloquist.

Achilles: Well, what I actually meant is just that somebody can say one thing and deny it all within one single sentence! It doesn’t literally have to be in the same instant.

Tortoise: Well, you didn’t give ONE sentence. You gave TWO.

Achilles: Yes – tow sentences that contradict each other!

Tortoise: I am sad to see the tangled structure of your thoughts becoming so exposed, Achilles. First you told me that a contradiction is something which occurs in a single sentence. Then you told me that you found a contradiction in a pair of sentences I uttered. Frankly, it’s just as I said. Your own system of thought is so delusional that you manage to avoid seeing how inconsistent it is. From the outside, however, it’s plain as day.

Achilles: Sometimes I get so confused by your diversionary tactics that I can’t quite tell if we’re arguing about something utterly petty, or something deep and profound!

Tortoise: I assure you, Tortoises don’t spend their time on the petty. Hence it’s the latter.

Achilles: I am very reassured. Thank you. Now I have had a moment to reflect, and I see the necessary logical step to convince you that you contradicted yourself.

Tortoise: Good, good. I hope it’s an easy step, an indisputable one.

Achilles: It certainly is. Even you will agree with it. The idea is that since you believed sentence 1 (“My shell is green”), AND you believed sentence 2 (“My shell is not green”), you would believe on compound sentence in which both were combined, wouldn’t you?

Tortoise: Of course. It would only be reasonable… providing just that the manner of combination is universally acceptable. But I’m sure that we’ll agree on that.

Achilles: Yes, and then I’ll have you! The combination I propose is –

Tortoise: But we must be careful in combining sentences. For instance, you’d grant that “Politicians lie” is true, wouldn’t you?

Achilles: Who could deny it?

Tortoise: Good. Likewise, “Cast-iron sinks” is a valid utterance, isn’t it?

Achilles: Indubitably.

Tortoise: Then, putting them together, we get “Politicians lie in cast-iron sinks”. Now that’s not the case, is it?

Achilles: Now wait a minute… “Politicians lie in cast-iron sinks?” We’ll, no, but –

Tortoise: So, you see, combining two true sentences in one is not a safe policy, is it?

Achilles: But you – you combined the two – in such a silly way!

Tortoise: Silly? What have you got to object to in the way I combined them? Would you have me do otherwise?

Achilles: You should have used the word “and”, not “in”.

Tortoise: I should have? You mean, If YOU’D had YOUR way, I should have.

Achilles: No – it’s the LOGICAL thing to do. It’s got nothing to do with me personally.

Tortoise: This is where you always lose me, when you resort to your Logic and its high-sounding Principles. None of that for me today, please.

Achilles: Oh, Mr. Tortoise, don’t put me through all this agony. You know very well that that’s what “and” means! It’s harmless to combine two true
sentences with “and”!

Tortoise: “Harmless”, my eye! What gall! This is certainly a pernicious plot to entrap a poor, innocent, bumbling Tortoise in a fatal contraction. If it were so harmless, why would you be trying so bloody hard to get me to do it? Eh?

Achilles: You’ve left me speechless. You make me feel like a villain, where I really had only the most innocent of motivations.

Tortoise: That’s what everyone believes of himself…

Achilles: Shame on me – trying to outwit you, to use words to snare you in a self-contradiction. I feel so rotten!

Tortoise: And well you should. I know what you were trying to set up. Your plan was to make me accept sentence 3, to wit: “My shell is green and my shell is not green”. And such a blatant falsehood is repellent to the Tongue of a Tortoise.

Achilles: Oh, I’m so sorry I started all this.

Tortoise: You needn’t be sorry. My feelings aren’t hurt. After all, I’m used to the unreasonable ways of the folk about me. I enjoy your company,
Achilles, even if your thinking lacks clarity.

Achilles: Yes… Well, I fear I am set in my ways, and will probably continue to err and err again, in my quest for Truth.

Tortoise: Today’s exchange may have served a little to right your course. Good day, Achilles.

Achilles: Good day, Mr. T.