On Writing and Governing of Truth

On writing and governing of Truth,

Maugre all the praise in writing I get, I am in no way very proficient at it. At the start of any motivation to write comes a fear of how the product will look. There is a pretext of abhor I will feel towards a record after having read it years in the future. It is either that or the very exposing nature of the act itself. In mind, everything I feel is eternally mine and only in constituency to my outward appeal. The actual properties of the existence are morph-able in an outsider’s objective opinion. Out of mind, it is fact as is and resistant to change. A subject or thought that I write about has real world evidence that it has had an impact on me and has earned enough palpitation that it has vexed me with a desire to write it down. On the other hand, if I never do create that real world evidence than it can be known to everyone that I did not ever consider it and my stance on one thing or another can be safely neutral. This is where the power to create truth is realized. Truth is nothing more than an idea that has evidence for its existence, current or formerly, and has a cause and effect. This idea can be tangible or something as abstract as a feeling. In practice with this governing of truth one holds what can be regarded as something greatly beneficial. One can, for instance, deny a feeling with such conviction and confidence so that no one may know that it was experienced. If there is no profession, record, observation or extraction of any fact that this feeling passed through this person and that person denies it has, what’s keeping it from being non-existent? I hold the same logic for something that could have physically taken place. When no indication of something happens is around, and one wishes that event never happened, then it should be an insured option to destroy its truth. A trade took place between two people, one receiving a shock of wheat for some silverware. One of the participants of this trade, later on, wishes to claim that the wheat they received was gown by their own hand and that the trade never took place. Say no evidence exists and sufficient dispositions are attributed to the mentioned tradesman to qualify him capable of producing the wheat. There is now nothing holding back the statement that the trade never happened. Truth requires fact and experience to the audience it is demonstrated in front of. To be fact something must:

• Be sensed

• Be professed

• Be caused

• Have affected nature

All these attributed need to coexist and the quintessence of each to be realized for an idea or an action to be existent. Our tradesman example almost makes it as it is sensed, caused, and it has affected nature but the only thing it is missing it to be professed. The trade’s nonfictional nature is being deterred by the one man’s refusal to profess that anything has really taken place. Even if the other man professes its existence, for this instance it does not prove that it is true. His argument is met wit, we’ll assume, an equally reputable argument that questions its verification. At this point the only real thing that does exist is the debate that the trade might have taken place and not the actual action itself. It is now realized, to the outsiders lacking experience of the immediate event, that the trader either never existed or it took place. Of course, to us reading who have witnessed the even in all its fictional glory, the trade clearly took place. But, without knowing for sure, and having someone speak against it, its existence is mutable. Through this exploitation of widely subjective events, an employer gains many previously lost powers. Assuming the following situations all contain the criteria to be mutable, a thief can never lose trust, a man can reconstruct his virtue and reputation, a woman could reestablish herself as a virgin, and a king could have his reign known as the greatest.

Of course some of these situations are very unlikely to harbor mutable truth, they are all theoretical candidates.

in all seriousness i think ill need a few days to digest all of that.

lol you must have broken the spine of your thesaurus on this one. it sounds like it came out of a broken translator for 19th century english (socialite edition). for starters, to "abhor" is a verb! all snarky remarks aside, some nice sentiments there.

If it's reasonable to believe in Newtonian laws of motion for the 'middle-sized dry goods' of the world, then it's reasonable to believing a tree makes a noise when it falls even if there's no one there to hear it.

But then, why worry about explaining things that no one ever perceives? Is there any point to the question in the first place?

  On 11/21/2009 at 6:24 AM, boris said:

• Have affected nature

at least you seem to have mastered this much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphereland

  On 2/16/2010 at 1:36 AM, kaini said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

I have that book! It is very good. I bought a copy to read to my kids.

Copy + Paste

"The so-called 'Truth' is beyond all the positive nonsense we talk and write. We never dive nearly deep enough into the abyss of negation, for such 'truth' is beyond all forms of mental activity."

and

"The 'Truth' is the absolute absence of any kind of truth."

everything else is an dream-game that we fervently hope is reality.

last post