TRUTH, AND ASSORTED RED HERRINGS
In the world of today, as in the world of every yesterday,
confusion is rampant. It is not surprising that there is so little
understanding of the concept of TRUTH. Simply, TRUTH is the idea
that there exists such a thing as Absolutes. The problem this
concept presents for the average human being is twofold.
First, there appear to be no Absolutes in nature or physics.
Second, since each individual human being considers himself to
be extremely intelligent, but is unable to conceive of Absolutes,
he concludes that they do not exist. This is a classic example
of erroneous logic based on a false premise.
People who have been set up as authorities complicate matters
by posing theories which do not actually answer the question.
(For if they did answer the questions, they would be "laws"
instead of "theories.") Many who do not understand these
theories, but do not wish to appear unintelligent, pretend to
understand them, and repeat the words and phrases which they have
been taught. So, while they do not understand what they are saying,
the repeaters of theories will argue for eternity that there can
be no Absolute because "everything is relative," because
what is "true" for them might not be "true"
for you, or whatever happens to be fashionable to say.
Beliefs are conceptions. Sensory data are perceptions.
What they both have in common is thinking. Concepts, or beliefs,
which do not agree with reality are unTRUTH. Perceptions are reality,
relative to the perceiver, as the color-blind motorist will quickly
discover upon running red lights, regardless of what color he
chooses to call them. Frequently concepts tend to color perceptions;
however, if the concepts are unTRUTH, it follows that the perceptions
which are colored by them are also unTRUTH.
Suppose it is your belief that it is your "right,"
or that it is not wrong, for you to enjoy a great deal of pleasure
and comfort. Suppose it is pointed out to you that your pursuit
of comfort and pleasure is causing others to starve to death.
You may not logically maintain that what is TRUE for them might
not be "true" for you. Because the TRUTH is that people
are starving to death as a direct result of your pursuit of pleasure.
And it is an Absolute TRUTH that no one likes to starve to death.
To cite as a contradictory example one who has starved himself
for a politial or religious belief does not nullify this statement,
because such a person did not perform this action because of a
wish to die, but in a desire to better life.
Reality, in which we are all fated to search for TRUTH,
is purely a matter of the perception of the senses and the perceptions
of the mind. It is self-evident that the senses are relative.
One sees better than another, while the other hears better than
the first. However, it cannot be argued that because one can see
a mad elephant at twice the distance of another that the farsightedness
of the one somehow changes the Absolute nature of the elephant.
When the elephant draws close enough, both will see Absolutely
the same elephant.
Perhaps a color-blind observer will see a pink elephant,
while a normal observer will see a grey elephant. Is there an
elephantologist who will insist that this discrepancy is due to
a pigmentation change common to elephants, rather than a difference
in the perception of the observers? Should the observers be "philosophically"
minded, and wish to dispute whether the elephant is "truly"
grey or pink, perhaps they would be well advised to recall that
the Absolute nature of mad elephants is to charge anything which
attracts their attention ... regardless of color.