Ignorant Bliss/Sad Knowledge

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: OK Fjlotsdale, let's move past postmodernism for a moment and hypothesise about say: an affair in a marriage, an incurable disease, the knowledge of nuclear weapons, the knowledge of the matrix, the knowledge of how others really percieve you or that you are adopted etc etc etc.

Was that postmodernism? (Fljotsdale blinks in somewhat stunned amazement )
I never did that. Avoided it like the plague. Must be in the air I breath, lol!
As for the points you raise: yes. I see what you are saying, and part of me agrees with you - but another part keeps saying 'hang on a minute, it ain't necessarily so!'
Ok, the mother/grandmother bit etc, is valid - but so is the bit about the hamburger/vegetarian. And anyway, who is to say that there IS any Absolute Truth?
Scientists are currently trying hard to construct a theory of 'everything' that will reconcile contradictory 'facts' about the universe. They think that if they come up with a theory that works they will have solved the mystery of the origin of the universe.
Believers in a god think they already know the answer, and that science is wasting its time. Both are going for the jackpot of Absolute Truth - and it is highly unlikely that they will have the same conclusion. But to each of them THEIR truth is/will be Absolute.
And who will be right? Will either of them be proved right in the long run? Or will a little green alien arrive from the depths of space with its own version and who should we believe then?
We CANNOT presently define truth in anything other than limited, partial ways based on our own experience. Truth is largely subjective rather than objective. Even in science and Religion!
IMHO!

Life experience is a case in point. Like yourself and many others, I have endured a lot and it has inevitably coloured my outlook. Someone without such unpleasantness in their life will see the world with very different eyes, even when viewing the same things we do. Which viewpoint is true? BOTH are!
Would I change my life experience? Well, it has made me who I am, and helped me to understand others. But, yes, I would change it if I could so that my children could have grown up in a happy, secure family. They would not now be so beset by lack of confidence etc.. But that's life.
------------------
Smile! Life is too short for bitching!

Fljotsdale

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 05-18-2001).]

[Keryvian]

Originally posted by WOLFGIR: I always say that ignorance is no excuse, it is a explanation, and I´m hungry for knowledge and thus i have to say that I prefer to know and be unhappy for it than ignorant of the truth.. But thats just me

It's not just you - I feel the same way.


------------------
Nid yw'r hoff o lyfr yn fyr o gyfaill.

[Yorick]

Fjlotsdale, I'm not talking about absolute truth regarding religion, although it may consequencially apply to that, I'm talking about the theoretical possibility of absolute truth as a concept. Certainly there are cases where what is "truth" is subjective, but at the end of the day, a rock either exists or it does not. We may well merely only percieve it to be so, and it may just be a mental projection of mine for all I know, but in that case it still exists - as a mental projection. Whether it exists as a physical manifestation is also something that is either true or not - regardless on how anyone percieves it. The truth may be hidden, but is at some point absolute whether or not someone percieves it.

I found an unusual situation when I first did interviews. It was said in magazine articles that I was from Gosford (just above Sydney). Another said I was from Perth (Western Australia).

To anyone that read those articles (and cared) I come from Gosford. If that was the limit of any record of my life, "Yorick" came from Gosford, so that becomes the percieved truth in any record left to posterity.

The absolute truth was something totally different.

I'm not talking in purely theological terms, though this does have theological consequences. The theological ponderings are as a result of the exploration of the concept of absolute truth - not the other way round.

The result is that either the universes creator awareness exists as a separate enity from the universe, or it does not. Of course there are other theories, but in purely focussing on this one "he" either exists or not. "He" cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

How could you explain that? If "he" exists purely as a construct of peoples minds then he is not existing in the sense to which I am referring. We will not ultimately know the absolute truth in this regard, but it is there.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 05-18-2001).]

[John D Harris]

Truth in all things!

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[bilqis]

Most definitely truth! How can you know how to proceed in a relationship, or situation without knowing all you can about it? And saving someone from the truth often ends up with more hurt than if you'd been upfront in the first place.

You can not run from the truth, for it will eventually find you. Best to face it in one fell swoop and get the pain and confusion out of the way. OR start enjoying the happiness sooner... not ALL truth is BAD truth.

(All of this is only my opinion on what I believe, and how I want to be treated.)

------------------

Sometimes I think I
understand everything,
then I regain consciousness.

Happy Member of Fast Fourward.

[Sir Taliesin]

ONLY TRUTH brings the knowledge to change all things!

------------------
Sir Taliesin

If they take my gun can I still use my Claymore?

[Traute]

The truth every time! Times of bliss make me nervous, if they last too long!!!!1

Traute

[Epona]

Great topic!
I agree with Yorick. I am not talking about truth in a religious sense (I am not religious) but I do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Then there are different interpretations of that objective truth which are subjective. It is not necessary to think that you will ever find that objective truth, either by science or religion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't truth. To believe there is no objective truth and that therefore everything is entirely subjective is postmodernist. And I am definitely not a postmodernist!

Yorick, you have posed a very interesting conundrum here. In one thread, 'Ethics' you ask if it would be right to tell someone that they are being cheated on. This post gets only a few answers which are mostly 'no'. In this thread, you ask a more general question which is really posing the dilemma from a different angle - would you rather know if you were being cheated on (or dying etc. etc.) and the vast majority say 'yes'.

So it is not the knowing that is to be avoided, but the telling? The dilemma is not for the person gaining unpleasant information, but the person imparting it. The person imparting the bad news has ultimate control over the other person's happiness, and makes that decision for the potential recipient, often based on their feelings about the telling, rather than the receiving. Were it the other way round, they would no doubt want to be told.

However, in a real situation, the messenger often gets shot. Is it the sentence 'your wife is cheating on you' which causes pain, or the cheating itself? The person in pain often realises later that they have been angry at the wrong person when they yelled at the messenger.

If I were in a situation where I knew someone was being cheated on, I would probably not tell the person directly, even knowing that ignorance is rarely bliss - it is usually just postponing unhappiness. Perhaps I would speak to the cheater, to try and convince why they should own up. Or perhaps I would take my friend out to a place where he/she can see the evidence for themselves, but without making it too obvious. Because sometimes it is better to learn something for yourself rather than be told.

------------------

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Epona of The Laughing Hyenas

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Epona: Great topic! I agree with Yorick. I am not talking about truth in a religious sense (I am not religious) but I do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Then there are different interpretations of that objective truth which are subjective. It is not necessary to think that you will ever find that objective truth, either by science or religion, but that doesn't mean that it isn't truth. To believe there is no objective truth and that therefore everything is entirely subjective is postmodernist. And I am definitely not a postmodernist! Yorick, you have posed a very interesting conundrum here. In one thread, 'Ethics' you ask if it would be right to tell someone that they are being cheated on. This post gets only a few answers which are mostly 'no'. In this thread, you ask a more general question which is really posing the dilemma from a different angle - would you rather know if you were being cheated on (or dying etc. etc.) and the vast majority say 'yes'. So it is not the knowing that is to be avoided, but the telling? The dilemma is not for the person gaining unpleasant information, but the person imparting it. The person imparting the bad news has ultimate control over the other person's happiness, and makes that decision for the potential recipient, often based on their feelings about the telling, rather than the receiving. Were it the other way round, they would no doubt want to be told. However, in a real situation, the messenger often gets shot. Is it the sentence 'your wife is cheating on you' which causes pain, or the cheating itself? The person in pain often realises later that they have been angry at the wrong person when they yelled at the messenger. If I were in a situation where I knew someone was being cheated on, I would probably not tell the person directly, even knowing that ignorance is rarely bliss - it is usually just postponing unhappiness. Perhaps I would speak to the cheater, to try and convince why they should own up. Or perhaps I would take my friend out to a place where he/she can see the evidence for themselves, but without making it too obvious. Because sometimes it is better to learn something for yourself rather than be told.

Very cool Epona. Great post. Love it. Very interesting.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

Yorick?
I wasn't being specially 'religious' either . And I don't think I'm postmodernist!

Reality is reality is reality. But reality (truth) CAN be validly different for everyone. Take another 'for instance' a very small one - a leaf is a leaf: but what colour is it? Green, yes. But the green you see is not the green I see, because the colour we perceive depends on the individual retinas in our eyes. But your green is true to you and mine to me. It CANNOT be Absolute! It HAS to be a subjective truth. And truth in many, many things in this existence is purely subjective.
OK. There has to be objective truth, too. If your wife is cheating on you, that is not subjective, it is objective. (What you do about it depends on subjective feelings!)
But ABSOLUTE TRUTH is something else again. The term (to me, anyway) implies the coming together of all things, objective and subjective, into one complete, unified WHOLE that cannot again be split into it's component parts. Let's go back to the leaf: if we could see it AS IT ACTUALLY IS, that would be the Absolute Truth about the colour of that leaf. Likewise, if we could know everthing about this universe, that would be the Absolute Truth about that, too.
But we can't even know the Absolute Truth about the colour of the leaf, can we?
If we could KNOW the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about EVERYTHING - why, then, we would either become the creator, or the universe would vanish, or existence would be pointless...
I'm getting out of my depth here!


------------------
Smile! Life is too short for bitching!

Fljotsdale