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?

Reply via email to