Something suddenly made sense to me.. a profound insight,I guess you may say. In the same way people believe the whole can't exceed the sum of its parts(and this was a mistake because whole=a single part/a collection of all parts), I understand that a circle is an illusion as much as a square is. They have mutual value,but are simply viewed from different perspectives.
How is this so,you ask?
Well,think of a circle in real life like it is taken in a picture. From a distance,it appears to be round,correct? But when you zoom in on it, you notice that it is constructed from a mass of pixels. This doesn't change the fact that at a distance it still appears to be a circle, but the fact that it is a circle at a distance doesn't change the fact that it is a mass of square pixels once you zoom in. Humans have a tendency to smooth things out from a distance,erroneously, but it helps differentiate in a way.. Because without smoothing out something,we couldn't divert our focus from the individual parts. It explains why, "When you tear something apart,it loses its meaning" makes sense. Still,meaning is the only thing that can.. well.. matter! That's why even if the meaning we have is factually incorrect, it still has value. Most people don't have the capacity to analyze things to the extent that they see them for what they truly are.. a collection of many individual parts that have different meanings when isolated.. But our different unique capacities allow us to form different opinions simply because they produce different degrees of perception.. and that doesn't change the way our purest products of perception are as real of facts as we could ever know! So comes to exist difference. Perception of difference = degree of space,and so comes to exist the perception of time and change.
Squaring of the circle.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Gestalt Formula (Revision)
1)"^" means to the power of/to the ______ effect/to the effect of______/to the _____ extent/ to the degree of____/to the _____ degree/to the extent of______/the product of it(future) and itself(now) times ________,etc.
2)"/"/other/over/relating to/relative to/compared to/proportioned/mutually relates to in the fact of relating to,etc., means divide
3)"+"/plus/positive/and,etc., means add
4)"x"/times/of/by/through/because of/applied _____ times,etc., means multiply
5)"-"/minus/negative/from,taking ____ away from/taking away______ from,etc., means subtraction
6)"=" means, can equal/is viewed in equillibrium as/is known as,etc.
F(x) #1 =/= F(x) #2,but F(x) #2 is different only because of where it is located relative to f(x) #1,(underneath 1).
Variations will be marked by inverse of function. x= [f(x)/1][ 1/f(x)] or
x=[f(x)]^1[f(x)]^-1
x can equal part of x by x relating to (part of x through *the mutual degree of its inverse* OR *the mutual degree of its other*).
x is the same as a part of x in the sense that: x=f(x) conditionally
You could even go as far as saying f=part, and x=whole,and the logical product would be:
"Whole is the same as parts of a whole."
In which case we really begin to see how much the validity of a statement depends on context it was said in and the definitions that are being referred to. We could define "is" as meaning "equals conditionally".
In language, if x=all and f=parts, this is using logical syntax,but the meaning may conditionally seem to contradict itself. Mathematically,this equation is potentially logical.
You can take it a step further and replace variables,as long as you are consistent in placing the replacement relative to the general change you wish to make and in all degrees where it should logically apply according to the initial rules of the equation.
Examples:
1=[f(1)][1/f(1)] vs. x=[1(x)][x/1(x)]
2=[f(2)][1/f(2)] vs. x=[2(x)][x/2(x)]
3=[f(3)][1/f(3)] vs. x=[3(x)][x/3(x)]
If 6=unknown(x) and 6=1x2x3,
6=x[f(1)]x[1/f(1)]x[f(2)]x[1/f(2)]x[f(3)]x[1/f(3)] / x[1(x)]x[x/1(x)]x[2(x)]x[x/2(x)]x[3(x)]x[x/3(x)]
6/x=[f(1)][1/f(1)][f(2)][1/f(2)][f(3)][1/f(3)] / [1(x)][x/1(x)][2(x)][x/2(x)][3(x)][x/3(x)]
and potentially,
x/6=[1(x)][x/1(x)][2(x)][x/2(x)][3(x)][x/3(x)] / [f(1)][1/f(1)][f(2)][1/f(2)][f(3)][1/f(3)]
x=6[1(x)]6[x/1(x)]6[2(x)]6[x/2(x)]6[3(x)]6[x/3(x)] / 6[f(1)]6[1/f(1)]6[f(2)]6[1/f(2)]6[f(3)]6[1/f(3)]
and you'd even still come right back down to
x=1/1
the unknown must be 6.
Equations are odd because they are depicting similarity and difference at the same time. They depict abstract coherency(the bigger picture considering seen and unseen),but seem illogical without considering the whole(when focusing on specific parts and comparing them,assuming those parts are the whole). The smaller the field of focus,the more meaning we're able to give to specific variables and the less objectively logical they are to focus on, but...
The point is,so long as x and f are not directly(in every way) related in value, the equation remains logically correct.. Denotation,or the definition of a word, IS connected to logic,and some meanings in a particular denotation are more logically correlated than others on subjective levels,making them more or less valid depending on the process of logic that was used. The more closely two equations are related(smaller total of different variables being considered),the more logical the equation *seems* at a glance,but that doesn't mean the equation is more or less logical. Logical predictions should remain consistent with the actual outcomes if a revised equation follows the same conditions.. however.. logically,shouldn't two seperate terms have a difference if they are technically different,even if the difference is just in spelling? To some people they appear to have a bigger difference than they do to other people.. It's all relative to an individual's past experience and genetic predisposition(Weber's Law,Abolute Threshold,Just Noticeable Difference and Difference Thesholds). This is how we form a more solid perception/illusion of difference/belief system/schema to discriminate with. The bigger the percieved difference,the easier to discriminate,the less personal risk of ambiguity.. The smaller the ACTUAL(objective) difference,the more illogical contradictions to our logic seem,but the more frequently they occur.. unfortunately,the smaller the difference,the more frustrated we tend to get when looking for logical discrepancies.
When dealing with critical thinking,you can also decide how an equation should be adapted by focusing on the relationship of the given variables to each other. In the initial equation, f is apart of x,but x could also be a part of f.. then,based upon definition,you think of two words sharing that relationship and insert them as variables to an equation..
Basically,you consider the rules of an equation exactly the same as the rules of an analogy.. They are the same.
This may seem peculiar,but think about it.. If a rung is considered a part of a ladder, the understanding of a ladder is a necessary part of the comprehension of the concept of a rung. Without it,we could only try to relate it in the terms of our own schema..
Paradoxes do exist. It is a matter of fact,but they don't make sense.. just because things don't make sense doesn't mean they don't exist. Usually what makes them seem strange is that they invalidate a previous assumption. Oxymorons exist in language, and the examples given above are great examples of how they are formed.. Paradoxes exist because not all truths are universal,and some are,in fact,conditional. To let the truth be known,the condition of x being a consistent variable must be met.. Otherwise we simply don't acknowledge them as ever having existed because it is impossible to.. It's impossible to understand something we haven't experienced,because truth is what we do experience in living. Truth is all sensation we percieve,and it is validated within ourselves,or not,but even as we decide they are or are not validated,we are validating them.. giving them meaning,discriminating. We are semantic entities.. we could not "survive" in any other way,because we would not know of our survival.
In this same way,we can view any whole.
Any whole can equal part of any whole by any whole relating to part of any whole through the mutual degree of its inverse or the mutual degree of its other/discriminated part.
A ladder can equal a rung by the ladder relating to the rung of the ladder through the mutual degree of difference.
So why,you may ask,is this significant? Well..
When you think about the all the wars that've ever existed in the world and how many lives have been lost,how many times were those losses the product of contradicting beliefs? How many people have been oppressed,lied to,misinformed,disabled by the situation they were in,and limited in what portion of the world they could experience at any given second? We all are limited in our own unique ways,but some people choose to limit themselves more than others(without knowing it). Some people turn to bullying after growing weary of trying to compromise with reason,they use faulty logic to justify the destruction of others' lives founded on self-righteousness, and still cite no mistake to acknowledge or learn from. But once you have heard you must heed.. so while those people continue down a self-destructive path,I would love for their children to have the option of trying to reach truth from a logical perspective,too.. Everybody has the choice,but not everybody is born with the option.. So I'd gladly enable understanding of percieved differences in intention..
...maybe one day we'll all wake up and understand that our humanity isn't to blame and that through being validated by the fact of their mutual existence, our perceptions are valued the same.
2)"/"/other/over/relating to/relative to/compared to/proportioned/mutually relates to in the fact of relating to,etc., means divide
3)"+"/plus/positive/and,etc., means add
4)"x"/times/of/by/through/because of/applied _____ times,etc., means multiply
5)"-"/minus/negative/from,taking ____ away from/taking away______ from,etc., means subtraction
6)"=" means, can equal/is viewed in equillibrium as/is known as,etc.
F(x) #1 =/= F(x) #2,but F(x) #2 is different only because of where it is located relative to f(x) #1,(underneath 1).
Variations will be marked by inverse of function. x= [f(x)/1][ 1/f(x)] or
x=[f(x)]^1[f(x)]^-1
x can equal part of x by x relating to (part of x through *the mutual degree of its inverse* OR *the mutual degree of its other*).
x is the same as a part of x in the sense that: x=f(x) conditionally
You could even go as far as saying f=part, and x=whole,and the logical product would be:
"Whole is the same as parts of a whole."
In which case we really begin to see how much the validity of a statement depends on context it was said in and the definitions that are being referred to. We could define "is" as meaning "equals conditionally".
In language, if x=all and f=parts, this is using logical syntax,but the meaning may conditionally seem to contradict itself. Mathematically,this equation is potentially logical.
You can take it a step further and replace variables,as long as you are consistent in placing the replacement relative to the general change you wish to make and in all degrees where it should logically apply according to the initial rules of the equation.
Examples:
1=[f(1)][1/f(1)] vs. x=[1(x)][x/1(x)]
2=[f(2)][1/f(2)] vs. x=[2(x)][x/2(x)]
3=[f(3)][1/f(3)] vs. x=[3(x)][x/3(x)]
If 6=unknown(x) and 6=1x2x3,
6=x[f(1)]x[1/f(1)]x[f(2)]x[1/f(2)]x[f(3)]x[1/f(3)] / x[1(x)]x[x/1(x)]x[2(x)]x[x/2(x)]x[3(x)]x[x/3(x)]
6/x=[f(1)][1/f(1)][f(2)][1/f(2)][f(3)][1/f(3)] / [1(x)][x/1(x)][2(x)][x/2(x)][3(x)][x/3(x)]
and potentially,
x/6=[1(x)][x/1(x)][2(x)][x/2(x)][3(x)][x/3(x)] / [f(1)][1/f(1)][f(2)][1/f(2)][f(3)][1/f(3)]
x=6[1(x)]6[x/1(x)]6[2(x)]6[x/2(x)]6[3(x)]6[x/3(x)] / 6[f(1)]6[1/f(1)]6[f(2)]6[1/f(2)]6[f(3)]6[1/f(3)]
and you'd even still come right back down to
x=1/1
the unknown must be 6.
Equations are odd because they are depicting similarity and difference at the same time. They depict abstract coherency(the bigger picture considering seen and unseen),but seem illogical without considering the whole(when focusing on specific parts and comparing them,assuming those parts are the whole). The smaller the field of focus,the more meaning we're able to give to specific variables and the less objectively logical they are to focus on, but...
The point is,so long as x and f are not directly(in every way) related in value, the equation remains logically correct.. Denotation,or the definition of a word, IS connected to logic,and some meanings in a particular denotation are more logically correlated than others on subjective levels,making them more or less valid depending on the process of logic that was used. The more closely two equations are related(smaller total of different variables being considered),the more logical the equation *seems* at a glance,but that doesn't mean the equation is more or less logical. Logical predictions should remain consistent with the actual outcomes if a revised equation follows the same conditions.. however.. logically,shouldn't two seperate terms have a difference if they are technically different,even if the difference is just in spelling? To some people they appear to have a bigger difference than they do to other people.. It's all relative to an individual's past experience and genetic predisposition(Weber's Law,Abolute Threshold,Just Noticeable Difference and Difference Thesholds). This is how we form a more solid perception/illusion of difference/belief system/schema to discriminate with. The bigger the percieved difference,the easier to discriminate,the less personal risk of ambiguity.. The smaller the ACTUAL(objective) difference,the more illogical contradictions to our logic seem,but the more frequently they occur.. unfortunately,the smaller the difference,the more frustrated we tend to get when looking for logical discrepancies.
When dealing with critical thinking,you can also decide how an equation should be adapted by focusing on the relationship of the given variables to each other. In the initial equation, f is apart of x,but x could also be a part of f.. then,based upon definition,you think of two words sharing that relationship and insert them as variables to an equation..
Basically,you consider the rules of an equation exactly the same as the rules of an analogy.. They are the same.
This may seem peculiar,but think about it.. If a rung is considered a part of a ladder, the understanding of a ladder is a necessary part of the comprehension of the concept of a rung. Without it,we could only try to relate it in the terms of our own schema..
Paradoxes do exist. It is a matter of fact,but they don't make sense.. just because things don't make sense doesn't mean they don't exist. Usually what makes them seem strange is that they invalidate a previous assumption. Oxymorons exist in language, and the examples given above are great examples of how they are formed.. Paradoxes exist because not all truths are universal,and some are,in fact,conditional. To let the truth be known,the condition of x being a consistent variable must be met.. Otherwise we simply don't acknowledge them as ever having existed because it is impossible to.. It's impossible to understand something we haven't experienced,because truth is what we do experience in living. Truth is all sensation we percieve,and it is validated within ourselves,or not,but even as we decide they are or are not validated,we are validating them.. giving them meaning,discriminating. We are semantic entities.. we could not "survive" in any other way,because we would not know of our survival.
In this same way,we can view any whole.
Any whole can equal part of any whole by any whole relating to part of any whole through the mutual degree of its inverse or the mutual degree of its other/discriminated part.
A ladder can equal a rung by the ladder relating to the rung of the ladder through the mutual degree of difference.
So why,you may ask,is this significant? Well..
When you think about the all the wars that've ever existed in the world and how many lives have been lost,how many times were those losses the product of contradicting beliefs? How many people have been oppressed,lied to,misinformed,disabled by the situation they were in,and limited in what portion of the world they could experience at any given second? We all are limited in our own unique ways,but some people choose to limit themselves more than others(without knowing it). Some people turn to bullying after growing weary of trying to compromise with reason,they use faulty logic to justify the destruction of others' lives founded on self-righteousness, and still cite no mistake to acknowledge or learn from. But once you have heard you must heed.. so while those people continue down a self-destructive path,I would love for their children to have the option of trying to reach truth from a logical perspective,too.. Everybody has the choice,but not everybody is born with the option.. So I'd gladly enable understanding of percieved differences in intention..
...maybe one day we'll all wake up and understand that our humanity isn't to blame and that through being validated by the fact of their mutual existence, our perceptions are valued the same.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Gestalt Formula
Thesis: Language dictating truth should follow logic and not contradict itself if it claims to explain an absolute truth(objectively) and its claims are actually true.
All is parts of all plus all of other parts of all.
all=1,parts of all=x(1),all of other parts of all= 1[xy(1)]
"x" = unknown variable/variables(can be plural if mutually applied to all "x"s)
"f(x)" = part of unknown variable
"()" = times,multiplied by,of
"=" = is
"+" = plus
"1" = ALL
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all
>13.(often initial capital letter) the entire universe.
"y"= OTHER
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/other
>oth·er /ˈʌðər/ Show Spelled[uhth-er] Show IPA
–adjective
1.additional or further: he and one other person.
2.different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied: in some other city; Some other design may be better.
3.different in nature or kind: I would not have him other than he is.
4.being the remaining one of two or more: the other hand.
5.(used with plural nouns) being the remaining ones of a number: the other men; some other countries.
6.former; earlier: sailing ships of other days.
So then, 1=x(1) + 1[xy(1)]
RULE: Pressuming things exist that we didn't consciously create or cause;
x=real number(real beyond thought)
y=all possibilities;real,imaginary or 0.
"x =/= y"
All variations of "y" or "x" that,upon application and in the context of the equation,follow these rules and still result in a balanced equation are objectively true through means of logic. If they are not true, neither are their means of logic.
If an object matches the criteria of a variable, it can replace a variable. An equation is a universal truth.
All is parts of all plus all of other parts of all.
all=1,parts of all=x(1),all of other parts of all= 1[xy(1)]
"x" = unknown variable/variables(can be plural if mutually applied to all "x"s)
"f(x)" = part of unknown variable
"()" = times,multiplied by,of
"=" = is
"+" = plus
"1" = ALL
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all
>13.(often initial capital letter) the entire universe.
"y"= OTHER
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/other
>oth·er /ˈʌðər/ Show Spelled[uhth-er] Show IPA
–adjective
1.additional or further: he and one other person.
2.different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied: in some other city; Some other design may be better.
3.different in nature or kind: I would not have him other than he is.
4.being the remaining one of two or more: the other hand.
5.(used with plural nouns) being the remaining ones of a number: the other men; some other countries.
6.former; earlier: sailing ships of other days.
So then, 1=x(1) + 1[xy(1)]
RULE: Pressuming things exist that we didn't consciously create or cause;
x=real number(real beyond thought)
y=all possibilities;real,imaginary or 0.
"x =/= y"
All variations of "y" or "x" that,upon application and in the context of the equation,follow these rules and still result in a balanced equation are objectively true through means of logic. If they are not true, neither are their means of logic.
If an object matches the criteria of a variable, it can replace a variable. An equation is a universal truth.
Contradict me.. I dare you.
The bible is ambiguous,or at least it became so when translated into different languages once the author(s) died. I view the bible as something of a poem,because after a writer publishes a poem, the meaning becomes different to each reader depending on what their own personal experiences are..
Basically,these different interpretations become an argument over which interpretation is more "correct" when in actuality,they each hold the same amount of truth in their mutual validity --their existence(s).
I don't think we can objectively know God's intended teaching.. He didn't write the bible himself,so the book shouldn't even be considered perfect subjectively,because to say the book is perfect is to say our interpretation of the book is perfect. Each different denomination is a different interpretation....
To say any group's (or our personal)interpretation of the book is perfect(holy/pure) while we're human is to say other groups' interpretations aren't(are sinful), that they're somehow less valid(not true),and that the holders of the other interpretations are somehow more susceptable to bias(sin), therefore we would be asserting that we are somehow above the sin that those people who don't hold the same religious persecutions as us seem to be subjected to. In that case,when we proclaim we are perfect(without sin) for what we believe and even go so far as to kill other people for the sake of promoting our beliefs, who are we REALLY worshiping?
In my opinion, the bible must be considered exceedingly symbolic if it can hold any truth without contradicting itself logically. Non-acceptance/non-tolerance of other interpretations would be a sin :x If willful ignorance and pride are a sin, then not allowing our logic to adapt as time passes should also be one,because to not change would be pride as the truth of reality constantly changes.
Ironically.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
>Wrath (Latin, ira), also known as anger or "rage", may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others.
Haha,look what's one of the 7 deadly sins?
I also find it ironic how I've been called unchristian by many christians and ridiculed while I've apparently(from their own confessions) of the Bible than they have.
..but I do believe that there is a logical doctrine to be found in the bible,and even other teachings, that is universal. I think,however,that that logic depends on the context and should solely be made in reference of it, not to justify it through any means other than rational thinking and not beyond stating the logic itself is a matter of fact.
Basically,these different interpretations become an argument over which interpretation is more "correct" when in actuality,they each hold the same amount of truth in their mutual validity --their existence(s).
I don't think we can objectively know God's intended teaching.. He didn't write the bible himself,so the book shouldn't even be considered perfect subjectively,because to say the book is perfect is to say our interpretation of the book is perfect. Each different denomination is a different interpretation....
To say any group's (or our personal)interpretation of the book is perfect(holy/pure) while we're human is to say other groups' interpretations aren't(are sinful), that they're somehow less valid(not true),and that the holders of the other interpretations are somehow more susceptable to bias(sin), therefore we would be asserting that we are somehow above the sin that those people who don't hold the same religious persecutions as us seem to be subjected to. In that case,when we proclaim we are perfect(without sin) for what we believe and even go so far as to kill other people for the sake of promoting our beliefs, who are we REALLY worshiping?
In my opinion, the bible must be considered exceedingly symbolic if it can hold any truth without contradicting itself logically. Non-acceptance/non-tolerance of other interpretations would be a sin :x If willful ignorance and pride are a sin, then not allowing our logic to adapt as time passes should also be one,because to not change would be pride as the truth of reality constantly changes.
Ironically.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
>Wrath (Latin, ira), also known as anger or "rage", may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others.
Haha,look what's one of the 7 deadly sins?
I also find it ironic how I've been called unchristian by many christians and ridiculed while I've apparently(from their own confessions) of the Bible than they have.
..but I do believe that there is a logical doctrine to be found in the bible,and even other teachings, that is universal. I think,however,that that logic depends on the context and should solely be made in reference of it, not to justify it through any means other than rational thinking and not beyond stating the logic itself is a matter of fact.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
How to WIN the game:
I find it kinda funny how people lose the game simply because I declare that I have won.. which really, I always have. About the game: I have determined why people become so frustrated with my "abstract" way of thinking. You see, most people follow a maze from the beginning to the end,falling for all the traps along the way,eventually(maybe) reaching their destination;the end(if they perservere the full duration). I,however,have always been the child who starts at the end of the maze, working the maze backwards. Some people would relate this to intuition,but these answers,all the truths we know,are ones that come from within ourselves. I simply skip the frivilous steps that may lead us to lies and begin the maze explaining what I already know: that there is an end to the maze and that it must have begun at another point to lead to an end. When you work a maze backwards,it's much easier to identify false paths leading to dead ends because the misleading paths tend to seem like they lead towards the center of the maze relative to what the perspective of a person working the maze forward a would naturally assume the "right" turn would be to quickly get to the center. Knowing this, I follow the path logically,more directly,believing most of the wrong turns would be pointed the direction of the "end";the opposite direction relative to the one I should going in. Typically,I know the true answer before I ever start a debate, and the challenge then becomes proving it to all the people who think differently.
The way to win the game is to understand the game's rules,to know the winner, before you ever play.
The way to win the game is to understand the game's rules,to know the winner, before you ever play.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Epiphany #1
..Silly people who believe everything they read is true...
I told my sister, "You should tell everybody that you read somewhere 'only geniuses are able to pick their butts and their noses at the same time.'" As if to imply that doing so would confirm someone is a genius.
I laughed.
People much more readily doubt "truth" in the spoken words of other people than that of written ones. I guess in print opinon seems more tangible,concrete,and absolute. Still, if writing is just another means of communicating the exact same message, then shouldn't something,despite being written,logically be just as incredulous? Unless a writer admits in their writing that what they say in their print is just a reflection of their beliefs, people are inclined to assume otherwise.. Which,upon reflecting,helps me understand why miscommunications have occured and HOW they do with things like religion,the interpretation of laws,holy books,etc!
Reading leaves less room for mental processing because more energy is used in the process of translating and decoding than in listening(where we don't consciously focus on grammar and syntax,but on semantics and phonetics..
Phonetics we instinctively judge as being 'good' or 'bad',usually equating to 'rational' or 'irrational',we have more daily exposure to, we judge more quickly(heuristically) without the intention or knowledge that we are doing so..
In any case, we have more energy available to focus on identifying an underlying theme and defining for ourselves how its meaning applies to our collective understanding of life as we've known it as our individual selves. We're much less able to understand written words as being opinion,just as fact based and justified as the same spoken words,and judge them in the same context.. There's a kind of justification some people feel they are given when words are interpretted for them and indeed,there is,but that justification is nothing more than what another person proclaims that justification should be.. Because we haven't taken the time to know for ourselves, we settle on what they say is true.. the product of having no confidence in our abilities to know something else. We doubt our own truth,the one that is obvious to us,therefore we are misled.. We think truth is something we don't/can't yet know just because of our inability to communicate it. We can't not know truth.. truth is indifferent to the individual. Truth is obvious and what isn't obvious to all isn't an absolute,all-encompassing,truth. *Beliefs* must be taught,and my friends, for these reasons we have long been misled.. only because we didn't know we were being misled. Truth is what comes naturally, anything else is a lie.. so don't buy into it! Don't lose sight of the self,the truest truth any individual human can know!
I told my sister, "You should tell everybody that you read somewhere 'only geniuses are able to pick their butts and their noses at the same time.'" As if to imply that doing so would confirm someone is a genius.
I laughed.
People much more readily doubt "truth" in the spoken words of other people than that of written ones. I guess in print opinon seems more tangible,concrete,and absolute. Still, if writing is just another means of communicating the exact same message, then shouldn't something,despite being written,logically be just as incredulous? Unless a writer admits in their writing that what they say in their print is just a reflection of their beliefs, people are inclined to assume otherwise.. Which,upon reflecting,helps me understand why miscommunications have occured and HOW they do with things like religion,the interpretation of laws,holy books,etc!
Reading leaves less room for mental processing because more energy is used in the process of translating and decoding than in listening(where we don't consciously focus on grammar and syntax,but on semantics and phonetics..
Phonetics we instinctively judge as being 'good' or 'bad',usually equating to 'rational' or 'irrational',we have more daily exposure to, we judge more quickly(heuristically) without the intention or knowledge that we are doing so..
In any case, we have more energy available to focus on identifying an underlying theme and defining for ourselves how its meaning applies to our collective understanding of life as we've known it as our individual selves. We're much less able to understand written words as being opinion,just as fact based and justified as the same spoken words,and judge them in the same context.. There's a kind of justification some people feel they are given when words are interpretted for them and indeed,there is,but that justification is nothing more than what another person proclaims that justification should be.. Because we haven't taken the time to know for ourselves, we settle on what they say is true.. the product of having no confidence in our abilities to know something else. We doubt our own truth,the one that is obvious to us,therefore we are misled.. We think truth is something we don't/can't yet know just because of our inability to communicate it. We can't not know truth.. truth is indifferent to the individual. Truth is obvious and what isn't obvious to all isn't an absolute,all-encompassing,truth. *Beliefs* must be taught,and my friends, for these reasons we have long been misled.. only because we didn't know we were being misled. Truth is what comes naturally, anything else is a lie.. so don't buy into it! Don't lose sight of the self,the truest truth any individual human can know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)