Don't ask. Don't tell.

--- On Mon, 6/12/10, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: [Zen] Re: Truth on Trial
Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 10:17 PM


If you cannot see it then there is no point in explaining. 
 --- In, "ED" <seacrofter...@...> wrote:
> Jack,
> Briefly, what's the point you want to make?
> --ED
> --- In, "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?

Reply via email to