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?