Beyond Truth

We left the issue of truth hanging... or is it just us twisting in the wind?

Complexity and truth. One causes the other to be elusive. Part of our problem is language. Peel back the onion of "truth" and "logic" within our language and we end up to "assumption" and "presumption".

What do we "know"? We have to presume, based on empirical observation, that humans generally perceive the world in the same way - mechanically. That is to say, our senses of touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing generally work the same way for all individuals since we have a 99.99% commonality in DNA. I see red, you see red. We probably perceive about the same thing unless one of us has a defect that makes us "colorblind". I can't tell you the "truth" of red. A physicist can describe the energy signature of red in terms of wavelengths. We can assign meanings to red: stop, danger, passion, Communist, Republican state.... But there is nothing inherent to red itself that assists us in the pursuit of "truth" or "meaning" other than the fact that it is very likely that our common perception of red is very much the same. But at the same time, our common perception is also our common limitation based on our common organic organization.

Where are we going with this?

If we understand that behind our language and our perceptions there are general commonalities, but also general limitations, we can begin to see the importance of the assigned meanings in our experience.

A volcano explodes: the gods are angry. Another group of humans are killed by a natural disaster: it is the will of Allah to punish the unbelievers. We won the war: God is on our side. That is the truth of "red". Okay, that's a little simplistic... but not too much.

We seek the "truth" of events, data, beliefs. Mostly, we argue about the truth of "red" (or we co-opt that expression).

Something can't be in two places at one time... except in quantum physics. Nothing can exceed the speed of light... except that light can be slowed down to a crawl under the right conditions. We all have 20/400 vision with regard to "truth". But perhaps the truth of it is that we can't really describe the truth with our language and our perceptions.

What can we do? Well, based on our common perception of the world around us, we can examine the appropriateness of our assigned meanings and beliefs within that dynamic, volatile framework.

A scientist attempts to say: "if this, then that, given these." If we do this, that will happen, given these parameters. If the results are repeatable, then the conclusion is deemed valid... until a better explanation is offered. There is a difference between science and science-fiction. When it comes to the meaning of things, we humans have a little more difficulty. We have a tendency to assign meanings when we can't comprehend or accept what our perceptions provide. Hence, since we cannot comprehend the beginning or end of what we perceive to be "existence" (but we try), we assume that something created it and, given enough people over enough time without any means to comprehend the beginning of existence, the conclusion is that there is a creator and that creator is God. Given more people and time, the "nature of God" is revealed. Given more people and time, God's "truth" is revealed. Given more people and time, the "true God" and "true believers" are revealed.

Except that there are apparently more than one "true God" and "true belief". So the only way to settle that anomoly is to fight until one set of true believers has dominated or eliminated another.

That is much more satisfying than saying, "We just don't know and can't know what's beyond our perception." After all, we get an answer and at least someone gets to own the "truth".

But I don't want to go there. It's much more fascinating to examine the results of humans assigning meaning to their perceptions. We don't have to know the truth; we can understand the consequences of our assigned meanings.

So, in coming issues, we have the opportunity to examine "right and wrong" "fair or unfair" "good or evil"... or we can examine "functional versus dysfunctional". Maybe they are just different faces of the same thing... maybe not.