Exploring The Shift
The shift is not a thing. It is the action of discovering Self.

This post started out as a comment to a post on a blog by Chris Cree which I am following for some time. Chris is a nice and candid person with a Christian background and despite the obvious difference we had some interesting exchanges on his blog.

When visiting there this morning, I made a comment to a post about the source of wisdom, which resulted in a longish comment from Chris, which he turned into a blog post because of the lenght and because it fits his blog.

As I was writing a comment to that new post today, the same happened, i.e. it got quite long and since it fits the theme of my site quite well also, I'll also make it a blog post with trackback. In fact I'm quite thrilled about it, as this is the first time I'm really using the blog for what might be called debate an exchange of ideas with another blogger.

So, what follows is my response to Chris' post about finding truth.

---

Hello Chris,
 
there was nothing wrong with your other post and I most certainly took no offense in it. I would also most certainly not place you anywhere near the "angry Christian" department, because if I did that, I wouldn't bother to read your blog and much less enjoy it or bother to write comments.

As I said on the other blog entry, I see you as a good man and as you mentioned in one of our emails, there are many similarities between us and also what I would call a similar wavelength.

Well, what triggered my comment there in that other post is that implicitly it means that you're calling me a fool because I don’t believe in the same book as you do. But don't worry, it is not a triggering in a form or taking offense, it just triggered the wish to make a comment to outline a different standpoint and maybe a bit of teasing. I know where you're coming from and that you are doing it with best intent.

Again, and this is important to me and I hope it shows between the lines, or as your wife would say in tone, that I'm not being angry at that. Merely thoughtful. But since I perceived this irony in that post, it was just too tempting to not point it out and poke you a bit. And since you say challenges me to refine and better understand my own views I am sure it is perceived in the right way and that you're actually getting something good out of my comments.

With that little prologue, I'd like to say that you are right when you say that we have fundamentally different ideas about truth (I'm linking a bit of my background here).

In the past I have spent a lot of time as well to evaluate various religions, and while I had more of a leaning towards the Eastern ways, in the end I discovered none which was convincing.

I could point out why that is so in regard to the things that got you convinced of the Christian way (for example the followers of every religion were willing to stick to their faith while facing the most horrible deaths imaginable). But this would result in endless discussion and people smarter and with more passion than me have tried that in the past with not much success, otherwise everybody on this planet would agree on one truth, which obviously is not the case. So discussing the pros and cons of Christianity is not my intention.

The reason is, that I don't believe in fundamental truth. None at least, which would go beyond some very very very basic points. I'm even going as far as saying that "there is no truth" is also not a fundamental truth, although it is a paradox. What I mean by this is, that if someone else wants to believe in fundamental truth, that is nothing I would get into heated discussion about either. But in my view truth is either self-evident (which requires no discussion), or it is not truth. It may be a faith, a belief or a world view (and both have great effect on personal life), but to me this is not fundamental, binding and all-encompassing.

So, I'm not even trying to convince you that your idea truth is less valid than mine. Because I think it is as valid as mine, all truths are equally valid for me in reference to the person holding that truth. But my idea of truth is not self-evident, so it is not true (in the sense of being all encompassing, gernerally applicable, etc.).

Which of course is a quite different understanding of truth as yours.

The important thing in this is for me that this view of truth serves in the reduction of conflict.

Which is why I was bringing it up on the other post. What I see is that most of the mess in this world as you called it boils down to conflict over what is true. When two people talk about truth, and those ideas about truth are seen as apllying to everybody but differ, then either must be wrong. And nobody likes to be wrong, so the fight to be right begins. If truth were not seen as general, not as something that applies to anybody or everybody but a personal idea about the world instead, there would be a lot less conflict.

You bring this example of helping a friend. I’m understanding your point, but how far will you go if the friend doesn’t listen? And if eternity is at stake, how far will you go then? Will you get into conflict or even a fight? And if you do, has the world become more loving and peaceful in that process of propagating truth?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t see passionate blog posts as hurtful – nobody is forced to read them.

But moving into truth can become treacherous ground.

There is an interesting sentence in the American Declaration of Independence and I like the reference to self-evidence there:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If I’m hard pressed towards defining truth in one easily understandable sentence, I’d say it would be something that would be self evident and would require no efforts at all to convince anyone of it. I think even those truths in the Declaration of Independence are none, because there are people who can, did and will argue them.

What remains, is very basic. Like “I exist” or “Life is change” or “People strive for happiness”.

Everything else I’d call a world view. There’s nothing wrong with these, everybody has one and each has great impact on the beholder, but to me, in a detached general sense, those are all equal. Including mine.

---

EDIT: Chris has written a blog post in reply to this one and you'll find my answer as a comment there on his blog.

---

Technorati Tags: truth, conflict