Quote:
Originally posted by The Hierophant:
Man, sorry for the late reply, life has been hectic, and still is, so I'll just quickly state that by and large I agree with you to the extent that individuals make better discussion partners than ecstatic mobs  But I also don't believe that universal truth exists and that attempting to 'convert' others to one's beliefs is a futile operation in that true communication (the total and utter sharing of memory, thought, emotion and experience: in essence, the total merging of minds) is impossible, thus, conversion (ie: attempting to implant your truths into someone elses mind, essentially 'cloning' your ideas) is also impossible. All that exists is your truth, by which you make sense of the world. In living in accordance to your truth, and your code, you can achieve fulfilment and satisfaction.
Discussion of ideas is a wonderful thing, but the agonistic competition involved in 'debate' is what often taints the exchange of thought. Discussion, rather than debate, that's what I like [img]smile.gif[/img] There are no winners or losers when it comes to defining personal truth.
|
If no universal truth exsists how can one be for or against anything? If we are all equal and we each have our own truth how can anybody ever disagree with the actions/thoughts of anyone else? By what authority does a person have to say that the action of another are wrong/ close minded/ antagonistic/ agruementative/ incert negative term of choice here? If living in accordance to one's truth/code is the standard that is to be applied. Then if one's truth/code was that they have the right to steal/ rape/ murder/ incert negitve activity here, then there can be no one to say their actions are wrong. ie: death pentalty, War in Iraq, terrorism, crime, No one can disagree with another taking those courses of actions. After all it is the person's version of
your truth and
your code that must be applied to their actions. It MUST be the standard in which their actions are viewed, not the viewers version of
your truth and
yourcode.
I would submit the following alterative: There is your truth, my truth and THE truth. THE truth does not require the acceptance, acknowledgement, or the agreement of either your truth or my truth to exsist. The real question is does your truth, my truth seek to become one with THE truth. In my life I've discovered there are some very simple ways to find if a person seeks to know THE truth.
1) Do they acknowledge THE truth exsists? (This is the foundation, for without this foundation then there is NO such thing as wrong. If there is no wrong, then there is no reason anybody can give to disagree with anything, genocide/torture/murder/rape/stealing/lying/incert what ever you disagree with here. If no THE truth exsists one cannot complain about how another argues their version of
your truth and
your code without being hyocritical and violating one's own version of
your truth and
your code.)
2) Do they back up their truth with logical reasons, and try to explain their logic or do they just throw their truth out without any supporting reason/logic and expect others to accept it as if it was a pronouncement from on High?
3) Do they apply the same standards to their truth as to another truth? Questions to ask to find out if they apply the same standards. When presented with another truth do they dismiss it out of hand, yet complain when another dismisses their truth? Are they willing to entertain their truth being questioned, or when their truth is questioned do they seek to dismiss the question as Irrelavant/ changing the subject/ scoring points/ incert term of choice here? When asked questions do they answer the question as asked, or do they give an answer to a question that wasn't asked? If anybody's truth can not standup to some questioning how much of THE truth exsists within their version? If a person will not answer questions possed to them about their version of the truth, how can they even think of
NOT accepting another's truth out of hand/ whole heartiedly?