Something True

In a moment of desperation, I wanted to search for something that's true in the world of lies. I decided to type in 'something true' in google and in the few milliseconds it takes between pressing the search button and getting a result, I realized how futile it was. Things that are true won't show up on google, they are things that must be searched for. If it were that simple, everyone would know what they were.

The truth is disguised by a thousand lies, and it's not that it isn't there, it's just that it's so hard to reach. It's a quest. I think I would distort the truth by adding in numerous lies.

I realize that if I'm searching for something true, I have to look inside me. There's no google engine for what's inside me though.

Truth or Dare

It's simple, if we assume people usually choose between extremes, they can choose between not believing almost anything they're told, and believing almost everything they're told. While both extremes are horrible there is a rationale behind each of them, an empirical formula that can help you decide which to choose. When you don't believe everything, judging by the ratio of lies to truth, you can be right about a the thousand lies you reject and wrong about the single truth you reject along the way. When you believe everything, you're wrong about lies and correct about the truth.

The alternative is simple, either be right about all lies you reject and risk rejecting the few truths that come across your way, or risk being wrong about all the lies you accept and be certain of truths you accept.

In a way those who don't dare believe anything cannot take the risk and for this, they are rewarded of not being wrong most of the time, but the real question is, does truth deserve the risk? If we don't dare to reach the truth, what should we dare for?

Worth an Answer?

Is it worth it to answer a question honestly if the answer won't be enough? I'm really wondering about this now. If you know that someone's looking for an answer that isn't true, do you tell them the truth anyway or save yourself the hassle and not give an answer.

The problem with answering truthfully is that you're effectively a liar if you don't provide the answer that someone is looking for. The problem with not answering is that you're held at fault without a chance to explain something that might make a difference.

At first I thought it was best to answer, but now I don't think it's worth my breath.

Almost Two of Everything

 

The truth is something to look for in this world. But why? I'm not certain as to why truth is so important. What do we gain when we find out a truth? What makes a truth more valuable than a lie? 

Even without knowing why, we all believe that it is. The world has presented us with the notion that truth is of the utmost importance, but still, why? This remains, in a way, not so explicitly answered.

The only thing I can think of is that the truth gives us something back. In most cases it's not just the gratification and satisfaction that we've found out something that's true, but something beyond that. It has to be something that only a truth can give. I wonder if a truth that gives you back nothing is even worth pursuing.

If we assume that the only truths worth pursuing are the ones that give us something, then perhaps that's where we can start.

How about lies? Some lies give us nothing, but are they to be viewed as sinister? Lies take away something from us. But there are some lies can give us something perhaps greater than the truth. Why do we not seek lies then, just this kind that gives us a lot?

Some truths take something from you and some lies give you something important to you. But why then do we still consider truths greater than lies? What does the fact that something happened or something truly exists, or something will happen, have to do with value?

The truth is that it all comes down to what we believe rather than some empirical formula. Deep inside, we must believe that truth, the actual existence of something is inherently worth so much more than something that does not exist and has never existed. To value truth is to have faith, a kind of faith in a value that cannot be seen but perhaps only felt. 

That's not to say that there aren't some fairly obvious benefits to most of what's true. Most of what was or is true gives you something you can retain to for the future. The truths of yesterday and today help solidify our steps into tomorrow. 

Most truths are that way, the truth about someone's feelings can help set expectations for the future and help prevent some kind of harm, and it may even create some kind of happiness.

The truth about some things in the past helps us learn from what has happened or gives us reasons and motivates us. The truth about the existence and nature of God gives us guidelines on how to best live our lives. This is why people are obsessed with the truth; it gives us information to process so as to determine which decision we should take to lead ourselves to a better life.

(I wonder if a lie that would give these results would be just as much worth the truth.)

Yet just as often as we forget why the truth is invaluable, we also forget to seek it. It makes sense for those who have no hope for better to abandon the quest for truth altogether. The truth gives you nothing that you don't want to take. Perhaps that's why we're puzzled sometimes by various people, many of which know the exact same thing and yet their reactions are different in light of the same knowledge. At the end of the day, it's what you do with the truth that matters and those who will not do anything with it will stop to seek it.

I've only just noticed that we have almost two of everything. We have two eyes, two ears, nostrils, hands and legs. We have two of most things and plenty of fingers. I've noticed that we only have one mouth. One mouth with one tongue with which we should eat, drink, talk, taste, kiss and sometimes breathe. 

I know I've noticed nothing new, it's no revelation, but noticing that so many of the things we have in twos don't have multiple functions got me thinking. I deduced that perhaps we were meant to use our functions in proportion to their availability. 

To have two eyes means to look at the world and see as much as we can. We're meant to look ahead and forward to what's to come. To have two ears means to listen for everything around us. We're meant to listen, not just to one side, but to both as has been pointed out to us by the presence of ears on either side of our head. We're meant to listen all the time. Ears don't have lids or plugs, they're always open. When we're working with both our hands we should listen, when we're moving using our legs we should listen. We have two lungs to breathe and we should use them to live. We should do more of that for which we have more.

But when we speak, we should not utter even half of what we see and hear, but less. We eat and we drink and we breathe and we speak with one mouth. We should be wise in using our mouths to follow the wisdom that nature has tried to implant in us.

And yet all everyone does is speak these days. They talk and talk without ever listening, without ever seeing. They block their ears with seals of their own making and shut both their eyes to all they see happening. They probably decided they don't want to take in anymore from the world, and only want to give their words to the world. But who will be there to listen if everyone is speaks? What good will words be to others who have blocked their ears too? 

What could people give from within if they have not absorbed anything from without? The funny thing is that those people who talk without listening are not worth listening to.  The more people speak nonsense the more others block their ears, and the more people block their ears the more they speak nonsense. It's a vicious cycle that knows no end.

The eyes, the ears and the senses are meant to take in all that is from the world; good, bad, truth and lies, and then process it all. We are to funnel all that is around us to our brain making doubly sure that we've absorbed it.

We have a brain to filter what is wrong from what is right, truth from lies, beauty from ugliness, good from evil. Our senses bring in everything for the brain so that it can arbitrate. It seems to me that only after all of this has been done should we speak. We should speak sparsely, only after understanding, or often, as to ask for more sounds, visuals and input and when we speak we should try to speak only the truth. We should speak of a truth around us, a truth that we've experienced and a truth that we've reasoned and possibly observed. The truth is hidden amidst a chameleon of lies. We should first try to notice the ever fixed truths that have not been desecrated by imposters and only then should we speak. Only then does that which we speak of have any value. 

A thought that is born of our sight, vision, hearing and processing is that which is worth speaking. How can one then speak the truth when one has blocked the senses that are to let it in? How can someone be content with a few chameleons that swept in and then claim to utter a word of truth?

Our senses are the feedback sensors like those found in a navigation system. It is through them that we detect our diversion off a desired course. How can one follow the right way when one's senses are shut down? How can one know what's right if one's ears are plugged? How can one compare truth to lies if one has let nothing in?

Yet we all speak and rarely listen. We use our rarest resource extensively and choose to forfeit the use of our ample resources. Our bodies were not just designed physically but metaphysically to adapt to the philosophy of life, to take in more and give sparingly. 

I wonder if nature was aware of our metaphysical needs with regards to truth, lies, understanding and speaking when she caused us to evolve. I wonder if nature knew that lies would distort the truth and that man would need to listen and be wary of those who defile the truth around him. I wonder if nature realized that man would need to distinguish between what is false and what is true and then utter his findings with care. I wonder if nature knew the difference between knowledge and truth and if she knew that we would value truth over knowledge and that we would always seek that which already is. I wonder if nature knew that the quest can't be settled with facts and that the more we know the more we will seek.

I wonder if we'll ever learn the lessons that were innately and intelligently integrated within our bodies. I wonder if we'll ever learn to study all that is around us and teach back only that which we find to be true.

More to Say

There's nothing to be said that hasn't been said as yet, but there's always more to say. There's always a different ear to every thought which words that have been spoken before can't reach. There are always ways that the world has changed that force us to say the truths in different notes and tones. Truth comes close to beauty in one sense, just like the word beauty is one to describe what is pleasing to the eye, the way it pleases changes over time. A woman's desired shape changes across the timeline of man, and changes from eye to eye. The color of skin, the color of the hair, their preference changed from place to place.

So it is with truth. Truth is that which is pleasing to the soul, and from place to place, it differs how that truth is told and needs to be told. In places with science it needs to be told in formulas and in places with spirit it needs to be said with spirit. The spiritual man won't believe science and the scientific man won't believe the spirit. The truth is one, but it needs to be told differently, it needs to be told and told again... it's always forgotten and needs to assure its recipients constantly of it's existence.

Shallow Gal

I find difficulty relating anecdotes which don't have any added value to them. I can only be sarcastic and angry and I have no sense of humor that satisfies me, generally because I find others' humor not so satisfying either. The things that go through my head are not as trivial as thinking how absurd women look in nineties tights, I mean they do go through my head but I don't feel the need to share it with the world. I would have loved to be funny, but somehow the way my mind operates does not allow me to reproduce the humor going through my system.

In any case, it goes to show that I’m one of these people who think about life, abstract values, and emotions and like to analyze things to get a better understanding of life and so on and so on and the bla bla bla that come along with all that. This may seem a bit of work for others who have got life figured out easily without need for this mumbo jumbo, but it doesn’t work for me. I like to explore the gloomy side and the alternate side of life.

I think it would be a blessing to be what they call ‘shallow’, which is taking things at face value rather than trying desperately to dig down to the mantel and core. It would be an easy life to think I got myself figured out and others around me figured out too, but I’m just not built that way. ‘Shallow Gal’ said I have issues and that I’m disturbed or something of that nature and I actually cracked up.. I can’t reproduce the humor of why I laughed so hard, but perhaps because I found Shallow Gal too shallow and because she just doesn’t know much about life, she thinks anyone who gives things a second thought must be disturbed.

Well after I thought of ways to tear down Shallow Gal on account of her superficiality and her naïve yet satisfactory understanding of the world (her satisfaction that is), I decided that maybe I’m only making myself feel better thinking that I’m somehow better just because I care about the dark and gloomy side of the world. Maybe I’m just incapable of being what they call shallow and my consolation for certain miseries I encounter on account of that is that I think of others as wanting or ‘shallow’. I mean if you can get by and be happy without going through the dark thoughts I go through, then I think you should be commended rather than mocked.

What do I know, I might be disturbed indeed, but at the rate the world is treating everyone, I’m guessing I’m not alone out there. Many may have no clue what I’m going on about, but some others may know that this has become our lives, to think of something further and look for something deeper.

This is who I am, after a party, I can’t just write about the scandals that happened and who was too drunk to do what and other bizarre incidents which I find interesting by the way. I would write about solitude, about that most lonely feeling you can get while you’re in a crowd. I would write about how you’re left with yourself even though you mingle. I would write about how I’m so conscious of myself when I’m drunk and realize I’ve been so isolated from the crowd around because I’m trapped in a shell called me. That’s what I would write, but I suppose others would write about a man drooling over them or an insanely funny drunk conversation.

I don’t think it has anything to do with being better, it’s just how people are built... I’d rather live miserably in what I perceive is the truth, than live happily in a lie... That about sums up my build. I'm not saying that others are only happy because they're living in a lie, I'm just saying that I personally find many truths a cause of some sort of misery and I'd rather continue digging them up than discarding them along with their misery.

I think if I were 'shallow' I would find such things utterly boring and if I were as they say ‘deep’ I would find this utterly useless because people want to search for themselves perhaps, but maybe for those few who have similar thoughts it might be interesting since they feel understood.

I write about what it feels like to be forgotten as a person and unappreciated, but why should popular people think of these things? I think about outcasts and people who are not socially capable of making good friends. I think about people who conform to society so much that they forget to be themselves and lose any natural chance they had to be special. I think of people fighting inner battles with themselves to change something that only sheer will can change. I think about how to take the fall in the way that best makes you strong. I think about how certain ideas that are generally accepted can be wrong. I think about what I can do to correct whatever misguided perceptions I may have.

Yes… all in all I think I’m just disturbed rather than dark or deep or any of that, I’ve seen some of life’s darker side and have no choice but to continue dealing with it. Would I have been less disturbed if my life was all great and perky? I don’t know. Would I have been Shallow Gal if things were different or is it just the way people are built? I don’t know.

Religophobia

Here’s the simple truth of the matter, people are afraid of their own religion. People have been terrorized by their own religion and have long forgotten that they have power over their religion. Instead of people having power over what religion they choose, religion has power over people. People do not believe in religion based on what they believe is true, they tailor their truths to match what their religion believes is true. Religion becomes no longer a faith but a given. It is no longer a choice to a way of life, but a way of life in itself. It is no longer a reflection of a chosen faith; it is a snapshot of a dogma that might have once taken the form of faith.

So what good does it benefit someone born in a religion not to have faith? My question is too absurd. Religion instills too much fear in people to even claim that they do not have faith. Certainly to the minds living in denial those things do not exist but to the hearts seeking the truth they do.

Religion teaches man never to be a slave to anything or anyone or any sin and yet man is slave to religion. He is guided by religion into a prison of thought. Questioning is subdued and without questions there can be no answers and without answers there can be no choice. So the same element that preaches free will and choice has been manipulated to confiscate freedom from its followers.

But how can that be? How can religion cause all this? Religion alone cannot but with religion’s help, man can.

At first manipulation was simple, to use any belief no matter what it was to benefit a selfish cause, but now man does not need to enslave and recruit people, people are already born recruited and enslaved. A bit of fine tuning and the machine is ready to go.

Question, why are people sensitive about their religion although it’s their choice?

Answer, it never really was.

People are locked on to religion and are taught to be sensitive about it. After all, how can people be controlled if they have nothing in common? A thousand dogs with a thousand leashes are like a thousand dogs without any leashes. Religion is the leash that makes people belong together but in effect becomes the one thread to controls them.

The truth is an entirely different subject because once reached, the dog becomes a man. Seeking a religion is one thing and being enslaved to one is another.

Religion is like an old road that people took to lead them to Rome, but as time passed the road became obscured and hidden and new renderings of that road appeared. People still followed the road ever so diligently, ever so loyally even though that road never went to Rome anymore. People got fixated on taking that road that they totally forgot that its intention was to lead them to Rome. The road met new roads that spoofed the people into thinking it was the old road. The roads merged and Rome disappeared, even from the hearts of travelers.

Is it the feeling of being lost that gets people to want to destroy others who have taken a different road?

Religion is the opium of the people, well I’m sorry Marx, I have to append something to that. Religion is the coffee of the people because even though it keeps some of their thoughts sedated, it keeps them up, alert and motivated, without it they will just be asleep thinking of the troubles they have with their identity.

What makes a lie?

What makes a lie? Is a lie the opposite of the truth or are both terms a gray shade in the black and white spectrum. Assuming that a lie is a piece of information contrary to fact or truth, in that case truth or fact must be identified. I don’t want to get into the whole definition of truth and what have you, I will assume that we know exactly what a lie is about. My real concern here is when does a lie become a lie.

The trouble is that the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that it can be very subjective. If someone were to speak a fact that wasn’t true, then we would assume it to be a lie, but what if that person believed it to be true, is it still a lie? It’s not a lie to him, so can the piece of information take two forms according to the viewpoint from which you are looking at it? On the other extreme suppose someone spoke a fact that he believed to be false and yet he was mistaken about it and it turned out to be true, is it a lie then?

How much of our intention has to do with words being lies or truths?

Let’s say someone wrote a note describing something he will do as a past. A suicide note saying, “I’ve killed myself, for I could not bear the pains of this world any longer.” It seems to me like it would be a lie at the time of writing, yet transformed into the truth if it is done. It remains a lie if it is preempted. So what makes a lie a lie?? There’s an intricate link between lies and time and intention.

If one were to say I was in the street just a while back, would it be a lie if he was there a minute ago, an hour ago, a week ago? When does it start becoming a lie. If never then lies themselves are not what I thought them to be.

If lies take such a form, does its archenemy, the truth, take a similar form too? If lies contain some truth to them, then mustn’t truth contain some lies in them as well? Let’s forget sincerity for a while because sincerity never changes fact. If truth and lies can contain so much of each other then they can be confused.

But I think that there’s a difference. A piece of truth inside a lie cannot prove that all of it is true, but a small lie inside the truth has a much more illuminating effect.

The trouble is that one man’s lie is another man’s truth. If lies are so subjective, then we can only evaluate them in relation to people.

The man who said a truth thinking it was a lie seems to remain, still, a liar and to the person who heard it, that same lie is a truth.

Lies are in the ears of the beholder, but can we say the same about truth?