Jump to content


Click to shop at Weed Seed Shop
Photo
- - - - -

Why Do Many People See Truth Differently?




  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • LocationBlueberry Hill

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:06 AM

I have been re-reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and it struck me how his search for what quality is seemed to have a direct relationship to the quest for Truth.

 

So what I have done, with complete recognition and admission, is I have used much of Pirsig's own words from ZAMM and replaced the word Quality with the word Truth. Many of the sentences I will present are taken verbatim from the book with only the word Truth substituted for Quality. Others have been paraphrased or completely altered to express the point I am trying to make.

 

I have included a PDF link to the book for those who wish to see what alterations I have made and to give ample credit to Pirsig.

 

This is rather long so I will present it in parts.


 

"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"

~ Goethe

 

 


#2 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • LocationBlueberry Hill

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:10 AM

When searching for the truth of any matter we often find that different people have different ideas of what the truth of any one particular matter is. This raises the question,

“Why does everybody see Truth differently? "

 

The following is adapted from ZAMM:

 

If we ask ourselves what we mean by truth and how we discern what the truth is we must recognize that Truth in the abstract, is shapeless, formless, and indescribable.

To define what truth, or the Truth, is we must intellectualize. Intellectualization is the process of considering the form or shape of an experience. Truth is independent of any such shapes and forms. The names, the shapes and forms we give Truth depend only partly on the experience we are trying to define as True.  They also depend partly on the a priori images we have accumulated in our memory. We constantly seek to find the relationship of the True event to our analogues and previous experiences. If we didn’t we’d be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues. We build up our whole culture in terms of these analogues.

 

Summation:

1. Truth has no form and is indescribable.

2. To define what we mean by Truth we must intellectualize.

3. Intellectualism relies on analogies we have been taught from childhood.

4. Our entire understanding of the world is built from these learned analogies. 

 

More latter.


  • Mountain Valley Wolf and Moonglow181 like this

 

"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"

~ Goethe

 

 


#3 Okiefreak

Okiefreak

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,248 posts

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:47 AM

When searching for the truth of any matter we often find that different people have different ideas of what the truth of any one particular matter is. This raises the question,

“Why does everybody see Truth differently? "

 

The following is adapted from ZAMM:

 

If we ask ourselves what we mean by truth and how we discern what the truth is we must recognize that Truth in the abstract, is shapeless, formless, and indescribable.

To define what truth, or the Truth, is we must intellectualize. Intellectualization is the process of considering the form or shape of an experience. Truth is independent of any such shapes and forms. The names, the shapes and forms we give Truth depend only partly on the experience we are trying to define as True.  They also depend partly on the a priori images we have accumulated in our memory. We constantly seek to find the relationship of the True event to our analogues and previous experiences. If we didn’t we’d be unable to act. We build up our language in terms of these analogues. We build up our whole culture in terms of these analogues.

 

Summation:

1. Truth has no form and is indescribable.

2. To define what we mean by Truth we must intellectualize.

3. Intellectualism relies on analogies we have been taught from childhood.

4. Our entire understanding of the world is built from these learned analogies. 

 

More latter.

Interesting. So far, so good.(1) I'm fond of the saying "Nothing is certain, not even that!" So I'd definitely agree with the first statement. So would, I think, many theologians, although the more conservative ones would say we know Truth because and ineffable Deity has revealed it to us. (2) I think this statement is practically a tautology. (3) Analogies are an important part of our understanding--even for scientists. I'm not sure that all of them are directly learned from childhood, but they are drawn from our experience somewhere along the line. (4) I'm not sure this is correct. It seems to me that mathematics and scientific experiments are not simply analogies, although their interpretation is likely to be. Is evolution an analogy? Analogy is another name for metaphor, and I think the world religions are essentially metaphors to live by.



#4 Moonglow181

Moonglow181

    Lifetime Supporter

  • Lifetime Supporter 
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,244 posts

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:54 AM

Responding to the title of this thread...i also think that people see their truths differently is because everyone is coming from a different set of life experiences, so they have different perspectives, too.


Edited by Moonglow181, October 06 2016 - 09:54 AM.

  • guerillabedlam and Irminsul like this

#5 Moonglow181

Moonglow181

    Lifetime Supporter

  • Lifetime Supporter 
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,244 posts

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:56 AM

and I did like the part about getting to the root of anything...motives, intent...so true. that is what I always try to get to the bottom of...not always easy, though.



#6 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • LocationBlueberry Hill

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:58 AM

Interesting. So far, so good.(1) I'm fond of the saying "Nothing is certain, not even that!" So I'd definitely agree with the first statement. So would, I think, many theologians, although the more conservative ones would say we know Truth because and ineffable Deity has revealed it to us. (2) I think this statement is practically a tautology. (3) Analogies are an important part of our understanding--even for scientists. I'm not sure that all of them are directly learned from childhood, but they are drawn from our experience somewhere along the line. (4) I'm not sure this is correct. It seems to me that mathematics and scientific experiments are not simply analogies, although their interpretation is likely to be. Is evolution an analogy? Analogy is another name for metaphor, and I think the world religions are essentially metaphors to live by.

1. I'm not interesting in getting into Deities in relation to truth. As Pirsig was not interested in discussing Deities in relation to Quality.

I am relating Truth to our sensory experiences and the interpretation of those experiences.

 

2. To define is to intellectualize, in that sense it is a tautology. But not the other way around, to intellectualize is not necessarily to define.

But be that as it may, the point is we can't relate what we view as the truth to others without resorting to thought processes such as language, symbols, pictures, etc. that we all agree upon.

 

3. I didn't mean to say all analogies derive from childhood, but that is where they begin.

 

4. The understanding of evolution is based upon analogies. Evolution would be the truth of what is occurring every moment in the biological world. Our understanding of the truth of evolution is based on the analogies we use to describe and understand the world. As we shall see.


 

"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"

~ Goethe

 

 


#7 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted October 06 2016 - 09:58 AM

Socrates said the only thing I know is that I know nothing which is known as the law of identity which is the foundation of formal logic. In a universal recursion of the law of identity everything would express a four fold supersymmetry and self-organizing systems logic where "I am not unconscious, therefore I think" because consciousness and unconsciousness can be considered yin and yang which will always transform into one another in extreme situations. They are up and down, back and front, context and content that prevent even more absurd metaphysical extremes along the lines of God creating a rock even he can't lift.



#8 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • LocationBlueberry Hill

Posted October 06 2016 - 10:00 AM

Responding to the title of this thread...i also think that people see their truths differently is because everyone is coming from a different set of life experiences, so they have different perspectives, too.

Yes, the different set of life experiences both forms differing analogies and is filtered by those differing analogies built from life experiences.


 

"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"

~ Goethe

 

 


#9 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted October 06 2016 - 12:30 PM

Oh, I forgot to add that it means people should be largely divisible into roughly eight archetypes with 4,430 variations on the basic themes. You can use 16 or 32 patterns if you want greater accuracy, but they shouldn't be necessary for most uses and most people only use the simplest two or three at most on a daily basis. You could say people are different because life itself is fundamentally fractal.



#10 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,998 posts
  • LocationBlueberry Hill

Posted October 06 2016 - 02:58 PM

Part I continued:

 

The reason people see Truth differently is because we all come to it with different sets of analogues. To give a linguistic example, to us the Hindi letters da, dah, and dha all sound identical because we don’t have analogies to them to sensitize us to their differences. Similarly, most Hindi-speaking people cannot distinguish between da and the, because they are not so sensitized. It is not uncommon for Indian villagers to see ghosts. But they have a terrible time seeing the law of gravity.

 

This explains why different people arrive at different ratings of Truth in the media. They all have relatively different backgrounds and knowledge. In a sense it’s the people’s choice of Truth that defines them. People differ about Truth, not because Truth is different, but because people are different in terms of experience.

If two people had identical a priori analogues they would see Truth identically every time. 


  • Moonglow181 likes this

 

"Oh, how sweet it is to hear one's own convictions from another's lips"

~ Goethe

 

 





Click to shop at Sensi Seed Company