I frequently hear people tell me that truth is relative. And this premise usually is coupled with the notion that somehow contradictory or even fantastic teachings are somehow true, because -- after all -- truth is relative. But it doesn't work that way. It becomes pretty obvious that truth is complex, that there is a fantastic dimension to our lives (in our minds and in the interface between the minds around us often known as "spirit"), that we have trouble comprehending the ever changing complexities of the truths of our lives. But truth itself relative? No, I wouldn't say that. And it is a delusion to mistake that fantastic element of our lives for the reality of our lives, even though in many ways "fantasy", "dreams" the "fantastic" is a more real part of reality than the material reality around us.
Posted by cholte at August 4, 2004 06:21 AMChris -
I think that the word "truth" in english needs to be several words.
Objective truth: 1+1=2 This is true everywhere for everyone.
Subjective truth (in several forms): One is experiential; another is generated by our beliefs; there are others a bit more obscure.
The experiential bit I like to illustrate thus: An exchange takes place between a white male and a black female, and there is a third person who observes the exchange but doesn't participate.
The man says something to the woman. He has no racial (or sexual) intent when he says it, and means no disrespect in doing so. The woman, however, experiences a racial (or sexual) connotation to the man's words. Which is true? Both are true; each to the individual. It is possible for me to say something to someone with no racial or sexual intent, and for them to percieve what I said as having said intent. Because this type of truth is subjective, what the woman experiences on hearing the words is just as true as what I experience in saying them. The third party observing this may agree with either of the parties, or have a third perspective. This perspective is equally true, FOR THAT PERSON. It isn't necessarily true for me. You and I can have an exchange, and while I truthfully have no intent to anger or disrespect you, you can experience anger or disrespect based on our exchange. My intent is my experiential truth. Your reaction is your experiential truth. Both are true, and yet from an objective standpoint they contradict each other. Can there be an objective truth that cancels these experiential truths? If we can discuss the matter, you and I can possibly come to understand the other's viewpoint; I can understand that you took offense at what I said, and you can understand that I did not intend the offense. This adds another layer to the subjective truths; NONE of them have been negated. The objective truth is limited to the actual words used; all are in agreement with the objective truth, but this doesn't change the experiential truths.
Hopefully this isn't too confusing; I am done ranting now.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at August 4, 2004 08:54 AMGreat Comment Mike. Admirable. Yes, this is the concept of subjective versus objective. And it is a very tricky subject.
Objective truth is 1+1=2, but it is also things governed by complex interactions. When scientists try to model the weather they have to figure variations in solar heat, prior conditions of humidity, precipitation, pressure, windspeed and direction, moisture content of the land... etceteras. The result is that scientists have come up with something called "chaos theory" for modelling these complex patterns. In these situations our "subjective" minds are supurb agents for comprehending truth. The truth may be absolute and objective, but we'll never understand it by using only our reasoning facilities.
Posted by: chris at August 5, 2004 05:50 AM