In this post I will attempt to clarify my views on the divine, and as a warning I will state upfront that some of this will seem far-fetched or even absurd to the more strictly scientifically oriented reader. I include this because it is the basis upon which all my other ideas are founded. That being said, I do not think it necessary to accept these concepts for the rest of my arguments to be valid, but to me it serves as a starting point to help keep things consistent. It may also serve to place my thoughts on the philosophical map, so to speak.
I believe in God. That is my first basic point. I believe, but being scientifically educated, I find it impossible to accept any of the established religions´ view of the world and the divine. Since all the prophets say different things, none of them can have brought us the absolute truth about God´s will and His nature. This may not even be possible, but my main point is that I believe that such a truth exists, and I believe that the truth about God must be the truth about everything.
In other words, philosophy is about trying to find the nature of God. This brings me to my next point, which is that I believe this to be possible. Our minds, through our souls are directly linked to the spiritual world where God “lives” (I warned you some of this would sound absurd, but I beg your patience), making them capable of finding truth. In other words, our minds are equipped with the tools necessary to find the deepest truths of existence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can I ask you whether there is one truth or many truths about reality or any one thing, is that something you have thought out?
ReplyDeleteYes, there is definately one objective truth. That is the cornerstone of my entire philosophy. The snag is that we do not have access to this truth in its pure form, so to us there will be several different truths, and this must be accepted.
ReplyDeleteSo, the best we can hope for is that as many people as possible can get as close as possible to the objective truth. All of these perspectives put together will give the best possible assimilation of truth, at least as translated to language.
The best understanding of the truth, however, will come from floating in the spiritual sea inside our minds, using these perspectives as a sort of map to find our way. In this spiritworld, once one is attuned to it, is free of any sort of distinctions between things, even free of a sense of time, which is the actual state of things.
Of course, all of this is just my best approximation of the truth (I see the potential problem here...)
Actually, what I am saying is that we can know, or more correctly: expierience, truth, but not accurately express it, as our minds are too muddled by physical existence.
ReplyDeleteI read a poem which I will quote. It is called "On the way home":
ReplyDeleteIt was when I said,
"There is no such thing as the truth,"
That the grapes seemed fatter.
The fox ran out of his hole.
You ... You said,
"There are many truths,
But they are not parts of a truth."
Then the tree, at night, began to change,
Smoking through green and smoking blue.
We were two figures in a wood.
We said we stood alone.
It was when I said,
"Words are not words of a single word.
In the sum of the parts, there are only the parts.
The world must be measured by the eye";
It was when you said,
"The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth";
It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragrance of the autumn warmest,
Closest and strongest.
Det er av poeten Wallace Stevens, amerikansk fyr..
ReplyDeleteDiktet synes å si at det ikke fins en stor sannhet, men at hver sannhet står for seg selv. Det betyr vel kanskje ikke at objektiv sannhet er umulig, men at jakten på en stor samlende sannhet er fruktesløs...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the Norwegian... The poem is by the poet Wallace Stevens, an american chap. The poem seems to say that there is no such thing as a Great Truth that gathers into itself all truths. It doesn't say that objective truth is impossible as far as I understand, but that search for the one truth probably will be fruitless.
ReplyDeleteYou could also say, like Machado:
ReplyDeleteMankind owns four things
that are no good at sea:
rudder, anchor oars,
and the fear of going down.
Isn't the idea of one truth out there a kind of anchor to keep us from going down? Going down is very important, but you can't cling if you intend to do it, then you might miss the point.
I think I might have overseen something in your theory, pardon me. As I see it you are talking about the status of any proposition. The One Truth is then not a monolithic truth, but the status of any one statement. Any one statement is either truthful or it is not. Thus you have got a truth regarding statements, but every single statement is one truth, so you have got many truthful statements not one truth. I need to do more thinking here before I start posting...(laughs).
ReplyDeleteActually, if I understand what you are saying correctly, it is the other way around. True statements are impossible. Truth exists, but is inaccessable to us. It can be more or less approximated, and the degree of approximation decides the quality of the statement.
ReplyDeleteWe can experience truth in a meditative state, but truth cannot be subjected to logic. Logic depends on dividing ideas into parts. Without division, analysis is impossible. As all is one, anything divided is automatically untrue. As language is a logical structure, it cannot exactly express truth.
Whereever I search I can't find the truth, but maybe that is just me, or even just me right now.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are looking for the wrong kind of truth. In a sense, truth is without meaning, without direct connection to our experiences. At the same time it defines those experiences and describes them in absolute detail. Truth is contradictory. If you search for truth and expect to find something concrete, then you will either find nothing or what you find will be false.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the wordless experience of truth then? I have contact with that, but what you are doing here is trying to give words to that truth right? Which is perhaps what you need to do in order to communicate at all... It is sad if transmission of the truth should be impossible. Which is really why I was saying what I was saying above...
ReplyDeleteYes! Thats what I´m talking about, and I´m saying its impossible to transmit truth exactly. One can get close, which is what I am trying to do. Yes.
ReplyDeleteI think it is most worthwhile to try to remain in contact with truth, while knowing that words are an approximation. Words are pointers. When I say this there might be a knower in the depth of you that feels the field behind the words.
ReplyDeleteI think that many spiritual people are in contact with this truth, but they lack the words to express them with so they say things that I frankly think are hilarious. I am currently trying to find out how to think rigourously without losing contact with spirit or truth if you prefer. I think that a lot of what is going on in the spiritual community is lacking contact with what you might call "earth" or the ground. Reversely a lot of what is taking place in the scientific community is too mind-based, and lacks contact with the stillness of spirit. Science is in many cases just a lot of words, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
ReplyDelete