Posts tagged ‘relativity and truth’
I had to leave the misspelling. Sorry.
This is a true story. I was being admitted to the stand by way of oath, so that I could (basically) testify against myself. What the case was about is another and irrelevant story (I will say the neurological doctor I had was infuriated).
The officer of the court–whichever he was–asked “Do you solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth?” [*There was an earlier time where ‘before God’ was still part of the ritual.]
I lied and said “Yes”. I proceeded to answer each and every question as accurately as I could.
The problem is that words are about us and not about what we perceive–they’re not even about the perceptions. They’re about what we have in common, “what we can point to”. I know your sorrow through your tears and grimaces, I guess at your joy through your smiles–and if I understand that language incorrectly, generally I am either criminal or ‘mentally troubled’–“or” in common usage includes “and”.
As I answered the questions I still deliberated on this. Had I told the truth I would have at least been held in contempt of court, although my other answers wouldn’t have varied.
All we know is form; all we can do is guess at content. That woman’s loveliness (to me) may be a source of fright to her–because she fancies I am staring at her. [That’s merely a fictional instance, by the bye.] Then again I found in the rather distant past that ‘her’ nervousness–since there was more than one and there was a span of years–that the nervousness on the part of women actually had signaled attraction.
I’ll admit I’m rather socially inept. Thus I don’t look, but look away. I’m also rather deaf, but then on the whole I’m grateful for that from what I remember, and I don’t turn my hearing aids up much at all except when listening to movies. In respects the internet has been a blessing to me because I can actually carry on meaningful relationships.
Any absolute statement in a relative universe is automatically false–except one, that it’s relative.
That means when you draw the limits of a definition, for instance (when you use exclusive definitions, that is, and do not notice irrelevant ‘facts’–and can refuse to accept said facts (however, a ‘fact’ is a rather odd notion in these days of photo alteration software, not that there was another form ever used or anything). You also tend to buy into a notion of linear causation, which actually does cause immediate, intermediate and longterm problems with any sort of attempt at a working philosophy. Modernly, said philosophy would consist of a psychological, political, religious or social theory basically. Openly religious people would insist on calling the usage of it faith. The others would contest any such usage hotly, saying that theirs is a science strictly of fact and therefore does not require belief. This happened, again, recently, to me. I forgot the economics majors, but I do lump them in with the political believers. The first thing the sociologists, psychologists and political scientists (what a term) are supposed to do, incidentally, is avoid believing in political systems. It is very historically evident.
I’ll end the day with a word. It’s “expediency”. Basically, it’s getting to the end as quickly as possible, from cutting in line to skipping a line or three in the assigned book to having a few people quietly killed so that one can get things accomplished.
I’ve noticed people who make absolute statements tend to have much less problem with expediency, from notion to usage. I wonder if that’s coincidence.