. ha ! i think truth has needs . first , an acceptance of all reality . denying no part of perception or experience of what is , or even what may be . it is honesty . then to speak truth , a language is required . various languages exist and some are better at symbolically holding the entirety of the reality/existence feelings . a good language has flexibility . because life is in motion , truth is in motion . in this view , the opposite of truth is denial or 'less than complete' . and the language one uses to express truth is a 'model of truth' and not in itself authoritative .
shouldn't this be in the philosophy forum? LOL truth is what you make of it. I find truth to be relative and subjective to each individual person's perceptions of what is. therefor, I do not believe in an objective Truth (with a capital T). But that's just my version of truth. what's yours?
and the Truth question is quite appropiate to psy , whether psychic or psycho . philosophy is very important to how truth is expressed . like a tarot deck is a philosophy , like old crone writing is a philosophy . each embody an expression of wholeness . wholeness is not subjective . there is only one wholeness . my old dad would say God is Truth since he has the language of his bible religion , yet i know he has experiences that his bible has no words for . he also has a bear totem . he also has a kid like me .
your perception of it is very much subjective, as is mine, as is anyone else's. kinda like Leibniz talked about...monadology, I think he called it. long long time ago All we really know is our own perception of reality/truth/whatever-you-wanna-call-it, and our perceptions are very much subjective, and individual to each of us.
wholeness does not require perception to be wholeness , only acceptance . acceptance is or isn't . anyway , our personal differences are not much in the light of this one universe or would you rather we had two ... ?
why not a separate universe for each person? who knows? All I really know is my perception of what is, and I know that is not exactly the same as anyone else's. I can make that leap of faith that it requires to believe in the objective, but I cannot logically defend its existence.
. i was awakened by crow this morning , and as i've been sleeping with the window open , i heard it softly talking . it's that way a crow sometimes has of sounding very human . probably , i thought , it's talking to me . i heard a word . a crow word , soft like an elder . separation is untrue , distrust , is not or is final ... ?
pritty simply an abscence of deception. which is kind of a neat trick, considering the coerciveness of human society and the defense mechanism of our own psychies to occlude sources of pain. not that truith has to be painful either. mostly its just a word. immagining our words can somehow accurately encompass an infinitely diverse universe that surrounds them. the latter being a pretty absurd assumption if anyone ever thinks about it, which most seldom do. truith is that whatever exists exists, and whatever doesn't appear to still might, and our words, like truith, are only symbols, and never themselves the things they represent. that nothing begins and ends with what we think we know about it, least of all just because we've invented a word for it =^^= .../\...
the line between truth and deception is so fine. there are so many shades of gray, but how, how would you define deception? or anything for that matter?!
