Truth Revisited

2000-7-19 12:00:00

Larry, my wife reminded me that I need to comment on magic for you. I will do that soon.

First I want to thank Judes for her common sense approach to explaining truth in a way a six year old can understand. Such a child knows what truth is. I find it somewhat frustrating that we adults must make it so complicated.

Saul writes:
If the basis of the discussion on truth is JJ's notion of truth, then his truth has to be defined as clearly as assumed by Xavier. JJ illustrated his truth by factual truth, which I asked him sometime ago to clarify but without response. Yet that is beside the point. What I would like to discuss is: What is truth? Isn't true perception of reality truth? Isn't truth to be found in perception instead of somewhere else?

When you brought up the subject I did not go into it because it was off the topic and also I had already spent considerable time and posts devoted to explaining and defining truth. I try and cover subjects rather thoroughly so we can refer back to them rather than spending a lot of time repeating myself. You might want to refer to the posts from the archives that Glenys mentioned, as this would contain many of my views on this subject.

I will make several more comments and try to add to what I have previously written rather than repeat myself.

You ask what is truth?

Answer: Truth is that which IS at any point in time, space or thought. It is sustained by the consciousness of all that is and exists independent of individual consciousness.

For instance, if you perceived that Judes was pregnant, and then you were to lapse into unconsciousness, it would still be true that Judes is pregnant even if you are not conscious to perceive the fact.

The moon would still be in the night sky, even if you traveled to Alpha Centauri where it was out of your sight and consciousness.

True perception in relation to law or principles is the correct realization of how the law or principle works itself out. For instance in mathematics, using the principle of addition, we have 2+2=4 and nothing else is true. This part of the principle of addition does not work itself out in any other way.

You say that truth is relative, yet neither you nor anyone else I have had this conversation with has been able to give me one relative truth. You point to Newton, yet the truths discovered by Newton were not replaced by Einstein, but added to. Every truth discovered by Newton is still true and has not changed one iota.

The difference between Newton and Einstein is a little like an artist adjusting the grayscale on the computer screen. Let us say that someone gives him a shade of gray for an ad and wants him to match it closely enough so it looks like an exact match. He takes the sample and works at matching it on the computer screen and discovers that 34% grayscale seems to do the trick. He prints up a sample of the matched gray and shows that next to the gray sample to ten people and they all admit that the match is close enough that they cannot tell them apart.

Now what is the absolute truth here? Is it that the match was exact?


But it was absolutely true that, for all practical purposes, the match was close enough that the difference was not perceptible to the human eye. It is absolutely true that the 34% grayscale will work in the ad.

Now let us suppose that one of those ten people happen to be one of those individuals who is very detail minded and takes the two samples of gray and examines then under a microscope and actually counts the number of dots per square inch. He makes what is to him an exciting discovery. After painstakingly counting the dots he finds that the original gray was not 34% but 34.10876% gray and the matching sample was only 34.10679% gray.

He approaches the graphic artist and says: "You did not have a true match. I have discovered that there is a difference in the two grays. That difference is .00197%. Why that's a couple dots per square inch. Are you going to adjust your gray to make an exact match?"

To this the graphic artist replies: "Not necessary for what is true here is that both the grays look the same to all observers and my match is a true working color that accomplishes the intended purpose."

Now the guy who made the working match of 34% is like Newton. The 34% is close enough that it would be a waste of time to figure any more exact calibration.

The guy who figured the non-perceptible difference of .00197% is like Einstein. He discovered a difference in the grays, but such knowledge was not usable or necessary for any art match in today's world.

Einstein's discovery that gravity has subtle changes due to bending space, the addition of energy and speed makes such a small difference in the application of Newton's laws to be negligible on our planet.

Therefore it continues to be absolutely true that we can still use Newton's laws to send a satellite into a pre-calculated orbit. This was true yesterday, is true today and will be true as long as worlds exist.

Let me repeat. Truth is not relative, but our perception and understanding of what is true is indeed relative and subject to change.

Einstein increased our perception of truth about gravity, time, space and other things but he did not change anything that is true. He obtained a more accurate vision of reality than Newton, but an accurate perception of truth does not change truth.

So in answer to Saul's question: "Isn't true perception of reality truth? Isn't truth to be found in perception instead of somewhere else?" I would answer that truth is not found in perception but exists independent of individual perception.

If Judes got pregnant in March and announced to a friend that she is with child, but doesn't look pregnant, her friend may disbelieve that she is pregnant and reject that truth. Then she meets her again in July and notices her swollen belly and now accepts because of her new perception.

The truth is that she was pregnant in both cases and the friend's change of perception did not change the truth. She was pregnant in March even though the truth was not perceived.

Like I say this is simple stuff. I am sure many feel it is a waste of time that I am covering the obvious here.

If you were able to remove yourself from the world of duality, there would be no truth. Truth can only exist when there is more than one of something. Light can only reveal when a shadow is cast. If you are in space and look through millions of miles of the sun's rays shining through the void, but with no duality of shadow, there is only blackness. Truth only exists in duality and perception of truth also exists there. If there were such a thing as a world with no duality, there would be no truth for nothing would be there and truth is something.

As far as some absolute truth beyond our understanding why even talk or think about it, for it would be beyond our understanding. Why teach a slug about nuclear physics if he can't understand? What we seek to do here in this course is to teach and discover the next steps in learning for ourselves - steps that all can understand and benefit there from.