Don't ask. Don't tell. --- On Mon, 6/12/10, jack.tem...@ymail.com <jack.tem...@ymail.com> wrote:
From: jack.tem...@ymail.com <jack.tem...@ymail.com> Subject: [Zen] Re: Truth on Trial To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 10:17 PM If you cannot see it then there is no point in explaining. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "ED" <seacrofter...@...> wrote: > > > > Jack, > > Briefly, what's the point you want to make? > > --ED > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "jack.temple@" jack.temple@ > wrote: > > > > > Truth on Trial > > If truth could be placed in the courtroom dock for its Reliability, > Veracity, Integrity and Honour, then how many I wonder would be its > advocates; and as to how chosen the board of adjudicators, and by whom > elected. Would that such a thing could be done, and such a trail take > place, then I for one would rather play the part of advocate on its > behalf than juror and judge of it. That is to say that I would rather > fight the cause for the plaintiff than sit in judgment of it, for > without that action there could be no trial; and no judgment made. And > whom I wonder would be the advocates for its guilt and unreliability, or > even non existence. But what is it which would be sitting in the > courtroom dock? It would be that entity by the first name of AS IS SO. > > > > The prosecutors case would be that there is no such thing as truth; > whereas my advocacy would be that there is nothing extant which is not > true; and that everything which exists IS true. The jurors position > would have to, by needs must, take the stance that some things may be > true and others may not be true, and therefore find out as to which was > what; and if indeed anything was true; and by the process of the > courtroom digging out whatever evidence could be found for either. > > > > Truth, however, has a number of faces, facets. There is that which is > found to be true with regards to extant phenomena AS IS, and also the > various truths of the facts which make it so and bring it about by way > of its structure and workings. Then we also have the face or facet of > human pronouncements upon those phenomena. Does this witness speak the > truth or not? Then there is the face or facet of as to how much can a > human being know of what is true and what is not true beyond the range > and spectrum of human experience. How is truth recognised as being true? > This was a dialectical process which I myself went through at quite a > young age. My stance was that nothing would be true, or said to be true, > unless it could prove to me that it was true. I had no vested interest > in its veracity and integrity; but simply curiosity. But how can truth > prove itself in order to justify itself? And thence be said to BE SO by > observers of it. > > > > It is most empathically NOT arrived at by a democratic vote due to > opinions and beliefs. Let us envisage a scenario that every human being > was born blind but then one day a baby was born who had vision and could > see. The democratic vote would be that it is true that there is no such > thing as vision. But the one instant of a child with sight would prove > that judgment to be wrong, and even though it were true that the rest if > them were blind and without sight. But how would the sighted child prove > to the others that he or she had vision? That would be a very difficult > undertaking. But that child would have the fact of sight as its witness > and proof, whereas the consensus would have no poof of it not being the > case; other than their own blindness. Could a thousand blind people > prove that one claiming sight could not see? Another facet to this of > course is that the sighted child would not be made blind by their > insistence that he or she could not see. And even if the case was found > it their favour. The child would still have vision, whether they said so > or not. Therefore their judgement and pronunciation is irrelevant to the > truth of it. The child can see, and that is true. AS IS SO. > > > > By what criteria then can a thing be said to be true? Insofar as I found > out at least, then my own criteria was in that of throwing everything at > it to see what could not be smashed and destroyed in so doing. By this I > do not mean throwing sticks and stones at it but simply that of > argument. It was not a case of my finding things so bad that I did not > wish to accept them as being true, for they were easy to accept; but > rather that I found such things to be so good that I found it difficult > to accept them as being true (it is all in the book). But why should > this be the case I wonder. Why is it easier to accept not good things as > being so and yet not its opposite pole? I don't really know why, but > maybe it has something to do with conditioning and nurture when young. > > > > Put it to the test today for yourself. Tell a thousand folks about > something horrible which has happened to you, and then go elsewhere and > tell a thousand folks something extremely good which has happened to > you. And watch the feed-back. In the case of the former it will be > sympathy and aid; for the large part. But in the case of the latter then > for the large part it will be hostility and sour grapes. Why? > > > > Time and time again in society, and generation after generation, we come > up against the comment, `I am seeking truth'. But the truth and truths > of what? Ask them that question, and see what they say. As for myself > then I certainly did not go in search of truth when young, but rather > that which was not true. Thus an attack on the negative in order to see > what could not be destroyed in that battle. Find out as to what is NOT > SO in order to find out what IS SO. That process, which took twenty > years, is far too long and involved for an email, or even a book. So, I > offer it instead as merely food for thought. Is not a lie truly a lie? > Is not a mistake truly not a mistake? Does anything exist, at any level > of existence, which is not so? Find me something which does not exist. > Even now, after all these years, I still demand proof of every > phenomenon which I encounter, and the claims which people make about > phenomena; and never ever, for as long as I exist, would I ever take > something as being true on faith. Faith has nothing to offer me. Albeit > that it seems to make life easy for some. > > > > To what degree this or that person has found things, or even searched > for things, then that is another question. As for me than I am not in > love with truth. I just admire it; and would uphold it. If Johnny sits > in a dark room all his life and complaining that there is nothing to > find, then, well, what can one expect. The fault dear Brutus - - ! Lays > where? >
