New Civilization News: Searching for truth    
 Searching for truth17 comments
5 Feb 2006 @ 17:37, by N Marion Hage

A million voices and countless choices call to us from all directions, saying, “Truth is here! …No, wait; it’s over here!”

Some espouse Plastic Truths that stretch unending, having no fixed boundaries. “Truth bends like a reed in the wind, forever changing, stretching and turning. You can never know anything with certainty. Believe in nothing! Have no convictions! Nothing separates the wise from the fool! A living person is no better off than a dead dog! Buy my book and don’t forget to give me a tax free donation so I can spread my truth! Well…it’s not really truth; because there is no truth…er…it’s all in my book.”

Others call with rigid inflexible dogmas, handed-down pre-packaged beliefs. They say, “Do not bother to think, because I will think for you. Thinking is not safe, and you will be best served if I tell you what to think. …I caught you…you had a question…Don’t you dare think or question what I tell you to think!”

They may promise freedom, but at what cost? “Check your intellect at the door, and simply do as I say, and follow my way. Look at me; I haven’t thought an original thought in decades and wouldn’t even think to think; but believe me, I know what I’m saying, because someone told me it was the truth and never to question it! I have come to the truth without ever questioning anything I’m told. And what’s more; I can get you a discount on a leaders book, which tells you what to think, what not to think. It’s risk free, but do not expect any money-back guarantee!”

It’s sad. So many plead for, even demand our total devotion; and yet, when we sift through the large words and arguments, we find emptiness and smelly wind.

Belief is not benign. Whatever we believe colors our lives. There is no such thing as “risk free” thinking. What we believe impacts who we are, what we will do, and most importantly how we see and treat each other. If we are motivated toward action or inactivity, it will ultimately have consequences.

Packaged thinking is for not for me. If not thinking is a requirement to get into heaven, then I am eternally lost. I reason, in a reasonable universe of dolphins and eagles and children, reason cannot be an evil thing. In a Universe of mysteries, thinking must be permitted. I refuse to check my brain at the door, whether it makes others uncomfortable or not. There is something wrong with a picture in which I am not allowed to make my own choices, or question another’s point of view.

Some would say there is a homing device inside each of us searching for answers? Why is it in our very nature to question, “Why daddy”, if questions offer us no advantage?

If mankind drops out of the quest for truth, deciding to numb its senses through a barrage of constant entertainment and countless distractions; I will keep seeking. Some believe, “Truth is for misfits, not sensible people!” Are they better off bombarding their senses with every pleasure inducing devise and chemical known to mankind? The human heart is not content with this world, and grasps for what is beyond. Seeking is the better choice; and seeking with our eyes open is better still.

I once pondered, “Is it better to be dumb and happy if the truth isn’t as pleasant as I’d like; or is it better to be deluded? None should prefer delusion; but the nature of truth is that it doesn’t bend to fit our wants, but rather forces us to deal with whatever reality might be. In other words, if I’m an ugly duck, I might prefer to be self-deluded that I am the most beautiful duck in the world; but there is some mechanism inside me that wants to know where I truly stand.

If you are like me, you also have this homing devise, an insatiable desire ‘To know!’ Long ago, when I first entered the crossroads of reason, I realized truth may not be all bliss. There is nothing like the stark reality of suffering in this world to cause us to question the nature of all things, including good and evil. I had no clue whether there was a God/gods, whether he/they/whatever were inherently good, or mixed, or worse. All I knew is that my concept of reality didn’t change anything. If someone exists, I can’t make them not exist. If they don’t exist, I can’t blink them into being like “I dream of Jeannie.” God/gods were not dependent on me. They just are; if they are. And my quest, if I should take it, is to seek to know, if knowing was possible. (This was, and is my approach) I'm not saying I know nothing. However, what I believe was not a package handed to me, but something tested, thought out, and through this approach, we come to know it's what "we believe", and not what we were told to believe or swayed to believe, or tricked to believe.

I have beliefs, but will not tell others what to think, because that is only an opinion, right or wrong. If they desire to know what I believe and why; I'm glad to share my journey. None of us should imply that truth means shutting our minds off, which is the ultimate control and manipulation tact.

However, I am one on a quest speaking to others on a quest. We may know few things fully in this world, but there are breadcrumbs of truth all around us if we are looking. We gain a clearer picture of truth through following the trail before us. I'm not saying we need a mystical experience to grow and learn. Mystical experiences do not make superior people. I'm not against Mystical experiences; but they can’t always be relied upon as a clear path to truth. An exerience should never make or break a person’s beliefs. They should be seen in a context.

Those who have studied will tell you that virtually all religions believe in lying spirits. A religious experience can therefore be as false as a liar's voice. Therefore, wisdom will question all things with the intention of knowing whether truth is in a matter or not.

Thinking is good. Observing and questioning help us come to realizations. This World, and this Universe speak volumes. We can look at eagles, and learn. We can look at the instincts in animals and derive answers to questions. We can look at macro or micro, looking at the cells of any organism, or the order of the stars, and come up with conclusions. If we cannot question what we believe, then we are likely bound to Archetypical* thinking; in which we follow pre-digested thoughts and beliefs. This does not mean we will never come to answers, but answers that are tested and tried and go through fire are the strongest answers. This does not mean a person cannot accidentally be right in what they think; but a belief untested is a belief that cannot be relied upon; and I think some things are worth scrutiny for the sake of knowing that we have found a bedrock, and are not standing in silt.

* My own definition of Archetypes differs from Jung’s own. I see Archetypes as mostly deriving from conscious arguments at the first. These arguments become so deeply rooted, they become an excuse not to think, and wind up deeply ingrained societal beliefs which are handed down through fortified arguments for so long, entire people groups become enslaved to them. They swallow them whole without actually engaging their minds. From the time we are children, beliefs and microbeliefs are taught to us. And by the time we are adults, we may not realize how many pre-digested arguments we have accepted without question. Perhaps it is in our natures to fall into Archetypical thinking, and never to question, “Why?” This inherently lazy thinking is so Universal, where others would rather have another think for them, one has to wonder if it is a flaw in human nature? Because of this, I believe part of coming to know anything requires breaking down what we already accept, and asking, “Why?” If we come to the same conclusion, at least this time we know why we believe something.


[< Back] [New Civilization News]



5 Feb 2006 @ 17:51 by martha : All is Energy
" From the time we are children, beliefs and microbeliefs are taught to us. And by the time we are adults, we may not realize how many pre-digested arguments we have accepted without question."
It is in the releasing of the energy of beliefs we accept as children that the greatest healing occurs and the awareness dawns that we are perfect as we are. It is the combination of energies that we use upon our path and then observe that leads to the greater understanding of connectioin with all. And when we quiet our mind and allow the heart chakra to accept love fully the full beauty and joy of why we are here opens up.

Welcome to NCN. It is a diverse group of souls all seeking. Good luck, enjoy the ride.  

7 Feb 2006 @ 18:43 by poetsong : On Microbeliefs
Microbeliefs are not religious dogmas, but the strongly held beliefs that make us who we are. "I am stupid" is a horrible thing to believe, but some believe it. It's not a religious conviction, but it may reflect what we believe. "The world is not safe," or "I can't trust another" may be strongly held beliefs. Again, we might not call them beliefs, thinking this is a religious term; but they stand up to scrutiny, because when we examine the impact, we make our choices based on countless micro-beliefs, not even aware we have them. What we believe impacts our lives more than we could imagine. The only way we can grow is to realize what we believe, and determine which of our beliefs are actually worthy of holding onto, and which need to be renounced and abandoned. "I am not stupid. There is an advantage in trusting another, though choose wisely who to trust. The world may be full of risks, but risks can lead to benefits...etc" N Marion  

10 Feb 2006 @ 15:53 by swanny : Communication
I wonder if somehow if communication is evolving
somewhat. The Mcluan adage that the medium is the message
offers a clue to the same message just in different forms
being broadcast by the old mediums of tv radio phone and snail mail.
Yet this medium is somewhat confusing or Hmmmm?
There is a asychoronized shift occuring and somehow the rhythm of
communication is.... changing to say the least.
But what is being communicated.

You write good... ha

welcome I guess Its a strange web...  

10 Feb 2006 @ 20:45 by poetsong : Communication evolving?
Words change and so does their use. If communication was evolving, we'd have greater understanding. However, I gather we have greater confusion now. People feel increasingly misunderstood. In fact, this is central to the point of "micro-beliefs". Insight, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge are like keys. Each one unlocks a mystery. I believe something about me, about others, and about the world. That impacts how I move and act in the world. Generally, a bad micro-belief is based upon a misunderstanding, lack of insight, lack of knoweldge or lack of wisdom.

Am I a person of value or worthless? I believe one or the other, or waffle between ends of the spectrum. All my relationships are colored by this belief. If I feel worthless,then I won't defend myself, or put up boundaries that say, "Do not step on my head!"

I have to believe in my worth to stick up for myself. And so, people who have low self-esteem tend to allow others to speak for them, squash them, and in some ways violate them.

What we believe at every level is important in so many ways.

How this relates to communication is that it's never enough to speak words. Communication is very much a part of what we do as well. The reason why so many people are screwed up isn't because they weren't loved, it was because words were not enough to convey that. In fact, many parents do love their kids, but that isn't translated, and so you have myriads of people who did not "feel" loved.  

10 Feb 2006 @ 21:07 by swanny : Thanks Poetsong
Thanks I was debating this with myself the other day.
The aspect of others "telling" us they love us
and yet us not "feeling" loved. It would seem the feeling
is more important than the telling as the feeling
is more... hmmmm of a knowing or hmmmm not sure.
Didn't actually resolve it. I did note that if one is required
to "change" themselves somehow in order be told or feel loved
then is that acceptable? I sort of concluded that change within
reason and so maybe but to become something else good or bad
hmmmm It was troubling to me. If one cannot be loved for what
one is within reason I suppose then is that really love then
or something else. Much is made of unconditional love but
the day to day love is well. Anyway I didn't end up resolving
much more than I was somewhat averse to having to change or such
at least to dramatically in order to be loved. Somehow something
about that feels incorrect. We do change and grow and learn when
we do and are ready but to use love as a bargaining chip does not
really strike me as love.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:00 by swanny : The History
You are right though or observant Poetsong
in that communication has sort of become
purjorated perhaps from its original intentions.
I find myself much of late getting unclear and
mixed messages from just about everywhere.
Now as much as this may just be a mature stance
of the form, I think we may have to "prune" the
communication tree and look back in history to the original
"intentions" of communication, apart from it being
mere advertizings, deceptions, lies, sensation etc. etc.
It was or would be so much nicer to return to a
clarity where people meant what they say and said
what they meant or is fuzzy logic and fuzzy communication
the new norm?
Okay so the history of communication.
Perhaps started out as a survival and then social mechanism.
It would be difficult to trace though I would think.
True we should be "discerning" but should communication be
considered somewhat sacred for the sake of ? truth?
Or has Truth become irrevelant?  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:04 by swanny : Ghandi...
Ghandi is said to noted though
that at "first I thought God was Truth
and then after some time realized
that Truth was God."  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:09 by swanny : The Attitude...
The Attitude seems to be though of the times
is Truth is irrelevant in leu of making a fast or
slow dollar. A sad commentary? Somewhat true?
The instigator of fuzzy logic says that
truth is not a duality ie T or F
He professes that truth in truth is perhaps
a matter of "degree" or "truth value".
Perhaps that is problematic to black and whiters
and most though.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:09 by swanny : Then...
Then some have postulated again
that there are some "necessary" truths.
This is an interesting take as it aligns
itself better with the concept or intention
perhaps of truth from the get go.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:16 by swanny : The Law...
Then in reference to "Law"...
can't quite recall but offhand
it states that Truth is that that
conforms with reality and that also
which proves itself over time or
stands the test of time or something
similar, but don't quote me.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:23 by swanny : Antinomies
Even the Law is conflicted though
by the notion or concept of "antinomies"
which is two apparent or real or valid truths or facts
but which oppose or contradict one and other.
Now that is a concept from the 1700s or 1800s
which probably set the world on its ear because
it creates a schizphrenia validity of sorts.
That things can not only have two meanings
but two opposing or opposite but valid meanings.
Truth thus is not an easy thing it would seem.

I digress.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 13:38 by swanny : Help...
That doesn't help does it,
Well sorry I guess I don't know what
truth is.  

11 Feb 2006 @ 21:17 by poetsong : What is true; what is conveyed to me.
When it comes to love, my father may have loved me and failed to convey it. However, it may be he had a bad approach, or there was a disconnect in me.

What is a disconnect? It's like bad reception. Someone says something that I don't hear. And this is true of my relationship with my father. I love him more now than ever, and understand him more now than ever; but only as healings have taken place.

My father said, "I love you" in ways that didn't speak to me. I had to learn to listen to his language; but that took overcoming what was in effect, a disconnect in my own ability to listen.

As much as we are wounded, we tend to listen wrong, and misinterpret life. Some walk around with what we call, "A chip on their shoulders..." Well, that is too broad a definition. What is a "Chip?" Technically there are thousands of versions of a chip.

Only as much as I am misunderstood can I recognize I might have misunderstood someone else. I tried to say, "I love you..." but they didn't hear it in the language they speak. And we all have different ways of feeling love. One likes touch, another prefers gifts, and another simply likes toast in the morning and clean socks in the drawer. Well, I may say, "I love you in my language," but you wont hear it unless I learn to speak your language. Love is there, but not getting translated.

More often than not, people simply can't communicate what they feel effectively. Well, I am not one for giving into futility. Through understanding we learn to speak and hear better. "Ah, my father did love me...very much...and was hurting I get it...sorry dad."  

12 Feb 2006 @ 17:52 by swanny : Hmmm
I suppose Love is not a constant as life is not a constant.
There were probably times of Love yes, times of hate or? pain
and times of indifference. If we're lucky Love occupies the
greater percentage of the time and I suppose for most that is somewhat true.  

12 Feb 2006 @ 19:43 by hgoodgame : Personally,
I'd rather face an unpleasant truth (and right away) than stay dumb and happy!

12 Feb 2006 @ 21:07 by poetsong : Unpleasant truths, and love
We are complex creatures, aren't we? We have many sides, and different people and situations bring out the complexities in us. So, in one situation we may seem loving, and in another terribly selfish. So, how do we know love?

Perhaps we can someday bring a discussion from another board over to here. We were talking about definitions of love. We used the Greek words translated as "Love" in English, Eros, Phileo, and Agape. The first is primarily carnal, not necessarily sexual, but it is primarily self-centered, "What do I get out of this thing?" It has to make me feel good and happy. Someone who says, "I love you, but can't stand you..." is actually saying, "I don't love you." because it doesn't meet any criteria of love.

Phileo is brotherly love, where the word Philadelphia comes from. It is probably the closest thing to love that most people ever know. It is based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It moves past how a person makes me feel; and in some ways Phileo is giving. If I admire someone, I may do something for them when I don't feel like it.

However, Agape is the most difficult love to aspire to. It is always "other" centered, and is the most selfless love. Perhaps parental love for a straying child is the closest some will come to this. That child could have caused great pain, and gives nothing in return, and yet the parent sacrifices for them. Yet, Agape can be towards someone in or outside of a relationship. In general, someone who cares about others who gives in secret, getting nothing from another is close to Agape. But a husband or wife can be married to someone who is simply not giving back, and may love them enough to make sacrifices for their sake. "They may never love me back like I need, and seen like an empty well that can't get enough...but I want them to know that someone loved them in their life, so I keep giving."

If we are to talk about love, then we have to define "Which Love". People who fall in and out of love generally are stuck at the most immature level of love, which is Eros, "Well, they don't give me the same bubbly tinglies they used to give me, so I'm leaving. I can't stay married to someone when I don't "FEEL" like it."

If "Feeling" is the highest parameter of love, then the world is lost. Feelings are flitting. Agape is often an act of the will "against" feelings. "They need my affection...I will get nothing out of this...they will drain me...but I want them to feel loved..." It is kind of like loving a wounded animal, for its sake. Now, Agape is the riskiest love, but when it is reciprocated it becomes the most beautiful love, and something akin to the feeling of saving someone's life, and them turning around and pouring themselves back into you.

Eros takes little character. So, you have countless people falling in and out of Eros rather quickly. You can't hate someone you have Agape for, because you are considering their need, not yours. You generally can't hate someone you have Phileo for, because you have respect for them, and some level of fellowship/bonding. But if your relationship is simply Eros, then it is akin to loving a new car until the new smell wears off and you want a different one.

In this, we are always best served in knowing what kind of love we have, which we aspire to. And in terms of Unpleasant truths, we can't ever grow until we face who we are, what is important to us, what is in the heart of others, and reality.  

29 Apr 2016 @ 11:10 by Bandar Togel @ : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:29: Innovation Yantra
31 Jul 2010 @ 16:01: Randy Paush - Lessons for Life
30 Jul 2010 @ 16:30: from Baudrillard to Verger: Diversification Vs Global Norms
22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16: Cartographers of No Man's Land
20 Jul 2010 @ 14:24: Getting other people to do stuff
16 Jul 2010 @ 22:57: Considerations on writing
14 Jul 2010 @ 14:53: Therapy Dogs Serve our Wounded Warriors
14 Jul 2010 @ 13:35: Consciousness of Pattern
13 Jul 2010 @ 17:04: What is Consciousness? - My answer on

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?