If any man would have any interest in the truth as even caring enough to say it and not deny it, or hold some inner conviction of its reality regardless of any conviction he might hold as to his relationship to it, he must leave the place of analogy. For to speak, think, or consider beyond its merest superficiality in handling as a word, or even a deeper concept, and well beyond methodologies, he must come to some place of the handling of essence(s). For unless truth is seen as both rock bottom of matters and transcendent in all matters he has not yet left that place of analogy.
It is in that sense a big word. And larger yet in concept. And eventually, if the man would continue, found to be the only matter of all matters that is or ever could be of any matter. The scientist, the physicist, the logician, and yes, even the philosopher is only handling truth by his methodology in some hope of finding (as the scientist and/or physicist) the truth of things, and of forces, the logician of orderly thought(s), and so on. And again, yes, even the philosopher understands he handles it at some remove; in some quest for a thing that operates toward himself as a persuasion, even some imbued vanity that the thing he might find, or bring close enough to eventually touch would then be in full summation of all the aforementioned; of things, of forces, of thought and thoughts, and even consciousness. All are operating as observers, conceding some remove from the matter(s) under their investigations and therefore are consigned to that place of laboring in, by, and through analogy. All, in truth, is by method of comparison(s).
And if this is too fine a point, all labor with some likelihood of hope truth can be known.
Is this sleight of hand that hope is now introduced? Again a word large in scope, larger still in concept…but can truth be applied to it in any form of congruency? Mustn’t they (if truth be known) run together in some sense? How close can they be? Can one (if one is inclined) say “I seek truth, or the truth with no hope of its finding?” That is folly on its face. And if they do, or even must run together are they in birth of one another? “I seek the truth by hope in its finding” or seemingly conversely “I hope to know the truth and/or know it if I find it if indeed it can be found”?
And no question here I must fall to any or all accusation of being merely philosophical or worse. A man seeking to use words cleverly (words themselves being made analogous to thoughts) to the end of some persuasion. And if I were to say of the accusation “I do not care” rightly the astute might say “well there must be some care if seeking to make that clear, otherwise why is it being said?” No, I quite readily admit we are all in some persuasion of one another in a sea of consciousness we share and that even what may appear the most subtle eddy’s and currents are all at work. In that sense we are all in effect. And one must care enough about something to even think…or further say “I do not care”.
Likewise, and no less, is this matter of truth. It is for each of us the yes or no matter, the yes or no question. (That’s a very bold and broad statement, isn’t it?) But who would deny? Could the man, or a man say “There is no such thing as truth” (yes it’s a word, yes it’s a concept)…but in reality.. “It doesn’t exist as either word or concept would lead one to think”. Well, if he states that, and states that as truth…?
O! but we are so bound!
We cannot deny…truth. For even if seeking to deny it, we establish it as a thing deniable.
By matters that have persuaded me a wiser man wrote “For we can do nothing against the truth but for it”. His testimony to its finding (or being found out by it) was by a person…not a word in the sense we commonly think as analogously used to convey men’s thoughts, or even some philosophical considerations of it as a concept, but as from a person made willing to show the truth that He is himself the truth.
Now, THAT is bold. So bold in presentation that yes or no is all and only what can apply here. The penetration of it is perfect amongst all men, that no matter their questions about truth, they are already convinced they are of it, themselves. What do I mean? I mean that each man (am I lying here?) holds this persuasion (again no matter how lofty nor foundational a thing we may make of truth) and is totally convinced he will know it (truth) when he hears it, know it (truth) when he finds it, know it (truth) when he sees it. That there is some string or chord already within himself to resonate, and that will resonate to truth. And that, in short, is a lie.
Am I telling the truth?
or
Am I lying?
A few sections back was discussed the matter of a declaration: “We hold these truths to be self evident…” and regardless of where one stands in relation to that particular document or its enumeration of the truth(s) held to be as self evident; the notion of the self evidency [sic] of truth is introduced. That truth is supported by a self that recognizes it, cannot deny it, and is (at least to all selves like it) plain. We discussed that this could not but leave a certain population out as included as having, or being, such a self. They had to be for this declaration to not be self incriminating of the writers as liars to themselves, and now worse, broadcasters of such a lie by such its declaration and upon which they took a stand. And not only so. No, far worse.
For the declaration was issued that such, as such, come from a Creator whose imprimatur of this self evidency [sic] of these truths is also undeniable. Either slaves are not men, cannot possibly be men included in “all men are created equal” and no less entitled to all so called rights enumerated, or the men in practice, regardless of their statement(s), are shown liars. And if they (even if not holding slaves themselves) but allow that others might (even such signators in whose company they have also signed and therefore show themselves as of that company) then they wittingly or unwittingly (it matters not) have shown themselves in practice not only compromisers [sic] of truth, but by practice declare (demonstrate, show) truth is compromise-able. Or, at the very least, their own declared truth(s) are such.
But God forbid any think I can say much about “other men”. For, in doing so, I only admit “I am of their company”. Worse if I think I have some “other” innate standing for speaking only to what must be entirely unlike me.
And what do we call men willing to compromise truth…whether it be assigned to themselves as “their own”…or even by most lofty statement made as coming down from a Creator as over all?
What then is truth if it is always (is it always?) subject to being compromised?
Either “not truth” (for it is neither rock bottom nor transcendent for compromise has made it its subject)
or
Truth always shows men as the liars they are.
And I am a liar. Even one who, in all practice (look and see how much I write and declare!) is full of compromise.
My self is the greatest liar I know.
Am I telling the truth?
israelx7wordpresscom 