It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Path Through Truth and Fiction.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
[To Admin: I never know where to put my posts, so please move it if it is incorrectly placed!]

--

Hey ATS Members.

Before I start, I want to communicate to you my purpose with this thread!

1. The purpose is to explain you from my viewpoint how Truth & Fiction fundamentally works for us.
2. By knowing this information, and if you find it important and wish to apply it, we might see less of these treads: "What has happened to ATS!?" or "ATS is filled with Noobs!" etc. (Now taking actual thread names, but many here will understand what I mean! (:

SO, before you give a comment, please read everything in this thread!

--

I'm been a member for some time now, (Been here also before creating a profile.) and there is always so much debate on what is true and what is fiction and often it ends with, "I'M RIGHT, NOT YOU!" arguments to the point where it becomes a YouTube comment section instead of actual debating. (Not here to complain about it.)

Now, I was thinking about it and these days it happens everywhere - Politics, neighbours, even friends, girl/boyfriends, husbands/wifes etc.

What is it that does this?

I Remembered this quote: "What is true for you, is true for you."

With that quote in mind, I began to think.
In a court case for example, you cannot go around saying, "Yeah whatever, what is true for you is true for you.."

Facts are always the most direct way to the truth, but as we know, it's hard these days to come around the REAL truth.

But the quote, "What is true for you is true for you." is Very good for normal discussion!

Let me emphasize EXACTLY what this quote means.

EXAMPLE:
A mental patient sees Jesus in the corner of the room.
You do not.

Who is right?

You are not necesseraily RIGHT just because you don't see one. Yes, she is most likely hallucinating or having illusions etc., but she sees it, and FOR HER - it is real.
Just like the party animal saying drinking a lot is awesome and it lightens oneself up and it makes it easier for him to communicate.
Maybe for you, you don't need alchohol to lighten up and communicate.
So for him it works that way, and for you it doesn't.

In simple situations like these, it is important to respect others opinions and remember this quote.

SOLUTION:

The best way is to give your opinion and leave it at that. But it has to be with HIGH admiration. Not to sound like a hippie, but you basically have to do it with love. Say it with care and love for that person. Don't say it because they are doing something wrong.
Use this technique: GRANT BEINGNESS.
Granting Beingness is basically allowing the person to exist. Don't judge the person, don't say he/she is WRONG. Make them feel that YOU accept them as they are. Only then can they change for the better. (I emphasize for the better, because if you do it with anger etc., he/she change to the worse.)

The worst way to change an opinion that you find odd (The drinking problem for example) is to go about it in an angry manner.
An angry person will ALWAYS think he/she is right and no one else is right.
Have you ever noticed a truly angry person always cussing at everyone because THEY are doing something wrong?

--

Ok, just so you know, I am kind of spilling information everywhere and not keeping this thread too structural. I still need to get my head together on all the details.

Basically I want to say that all evil happens because of miscommunication. In some way or another. Remember that communication is MUCH more than talking!!

--

READ NEXT POST BELOW.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by SalkinVictory]




posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Ok, so without facts - WHO is allowed to give truth?

Those who are experienced. DON'T GET ME WRONG! A 2 year old can be more experienced that a 80 year old!!

Experience in my opinion is your ability to observe correctly.
By proper observation, you can even predict the future, whether it be 2 seconds or 2 years. Many have done it already.

EXAMPLE:

You see a man walking and a small hole in the pavement? Can you predict that he will fall?

--

All I'm trying to say is that those who are experienced in that way most likely see truth without needing facts.

Although that's not the point of this thread, my major point is this:

I wanted to let everyone know this:

If you are in a situation where a argument is occuring and you find no escape hole. Let it be - what works for that person works for that person, and what works for you, works for you.

For example religion. Why bash religion if it works for some and helps some feel good in life. Now you might say: "Cause they are living a lie!"

If you use the quote: "What is true for you, is true for you." Then they AREN'T Living a lie, because they sincerely believe it.

The only way to advance and get those that YOU believe are living a lie, is to give your opinion WITH ADMIRATION (The KEY!) and if it is correct, they will change if they wish too.

Either way you have only 2 choices.

1. Bash them with facts and curse the sh#t out of them.
2. Give them information and make them realize for themselves.

Forcing information is like breaking soveriegnty.

Remember this golden rule:

Only the individual HIMSELF can change his ways. No one can change his ways for him.

--

I hope this made sense, very cluttered up!
I'd appreciate proper reply's and I'd very much appreciate any additions to this.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I try to be fair with my replies to topics.

I dont like it very much either, when someone pulls the "IM RIGHT, here are the facts" card.

Some things need to be backed up with evidence. We are essentially detectives on this website, following evidence in hopes of ending with the truth.
But....

State your case, state it with discretion.


Good points overall, OP.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I understand exactly what you are saying. Treat people the way we would want to be treated. With love, friendship, kindness, patience, and all the good things in this world. Before one can react with that kind of responses they have to have those feelings inside of them. If one is bitter, sad, angry, and so on, it appears that they have a harder time showing the good responses. Some people choose to be that way. It is because of the presence of what is perceived to be good and evil. With everything that is going on today everyone can be separated into two groups. The have's and the have not's. Some people have the ability, some people do not. I readily agree with your philosophy that we can only change ourselves. It has to start with the will to change. Only then can you accomplish anything that you want.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by InertiaZero
I try to be fair with my replies to topics.

I dont like it very much either, when someone pulls the "IM RIGHT, here are the facts" card.


I think the, "I'M RIGHT, here are the facts" attitude is what destroys it. To act superior because you have the facts is undermining the people who don't. One has to remember that people are here to learn. For many, it's embarrassing to learn at a certain age, for example 40. That's why we have so many, "I know more than you, little kid" people.

And it's only embarrassing to them because learning sounds like something you do in school. But learning takes place EVERY SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIFE!

And telling people, "I'M RIGHT" is like shutting them down completely.
You have to think, they are only learning, just like I was once!


Originally posted by InertiaZero
Some things need to be backed up with evidence. We are essentially detectives on this website, following evidence in hopes of ending with the truth.
But....

State your case, state it with discretion.


Good points overall, OP.


I completely agree with you. Where would we be without facts!

Like you basically said, state ones case 100%, but don't shove it in people's faces. No one learns with information shoved in their face.

That's just confusion.

But also, it's so hard from ones viewpoint to understand the other person. You are not the other person, so you don't know if he needs time, or wants more information, or simply needs to be left alone to find out for himself.

Anyways, I think I communicated my point.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
I understand exactly what you are saying. Treat people the way we would want to be treated. With love, friendship, kindness, patience, and all the good things in this world. Before one can react with that kind of responses they have to have those feelings inside of them. If one is bitter, sad, angry, and so on, it appears that they have a harder time showing the good responses. Some people choose to be that way. It is because of the presence of what is perceived to be good and evil.


Yes, some people have a hard time being/starying positive in this world. There are always certain attitudes you can have towards people like that so that they become a little more positive.

Everyone has bad days etc. There is always something that can get them up.


Originally posted by Conclusion
With everything that is going on today everyone can be separated into two groups. The have's and the have not's. Some people have the ability, some people do not. I readily agree with your philosophy that we can only change ourselves. It has to start with the will to change. Only then can you accomplish anything that you want.


Yes exactly.

The ones that do not have the ability to do those things, I believe CAN get it, but again, by their own cognitions. They will have to see it for themselves.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I would like to state, despite what what have said here....

If everyone, even in a community like we have here, understood patience/respect/understanding, the world would be a better place in general.

Essentially, it's nice to imagine, but it's too much to ask of the average person in this world. It's good to know that we have at least a few like-minded individuals here.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SalkinVictory
 


I do understand. The concept in theory is very easy to understand. What I don't understand is why we are not like that. I get the whole, because we are separate entities traveling along an individual path and as a whole we are on the same path reasoning of the existence of the, I believe term is described as self, also.

Take this thread for instance. It has, as anything does, the probability of changing existence as we know it. Through what knowledge we all three posses on the subject, surely we can really get to the bottom of what is really happening. If other people decide to join that is more knowledge and understanding. There by we become as a whole. Speaking the truth only and having theories of our own that we can discuss for the better or worse of the subject in the conversation. I could use all the help I can get. lol.

Let us give careful consideration to every thing we know as truth to our self and share what we know with each other.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by InertiaZero
 


Let us in here focus on changing ourselves to what we know as the truth, along the way maybe someone else will be helped. You seem to understand a lot of things from the post's I have seen of yours. I will try to read all your posts to see if I can understand where you come from. Both of you. Let us three in hear now start a new gesture. The gesture of friendship.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SalkinVictory
 


This is an interesting thread and thanks for posting it. I would like to jump in and begin, ironically, by questioning your interpretation of the quote you provided:

"What is true for you is true."

It is interesting to me that you have not acknowledged the author of that quote and I am hesitant to do so myself, only because I wouldn't want to see this thread derailed in discussions about the author and his beliefs versus what you are attempting to discuss. That said, you have used enough language in this thread to suggest to me that you know something of the beliefs of this author and I remain uncertain that your interpretation of that quote is correct. How ironic no?

Either you have interpreted the quote correctly and therefore are right in your interpretation and my own interpretation then would be necessarily wrong or vice versa or even that both of us are wrong or maybe both of us correct. Here is how I interpret:

"What is true for you is true."

All of us come to believe that things are true through our experience and the level of awareness we are at while experiencing it and the level of awareness we are at during any time. Further, we are profoundly affected by our emotional states and these levels of emotions can either be positive and more conducive to wisdom or negative and filter out our wisdom.

If I am at an emotional state of serenity the truth will look different to me than it will if I am at an emotional state of anger or depression or feel a need to control others, or feel a need to submit to others, etc., etc., etc., and of all these various emotional states there is always the truth. How I see the truth is not necessarily the truth but regardless as long as I see the truth in a certain way, then that is what is true for me.

However, if I am insane and all my truth is based upon my own insanity, I am most likely not correct in my understanding of truth, which is irrelevant to me while I am insane and correct or not what is true for me is still true. Contrary to this believe that "what is true for you is true" is another believe which states:

"What is true for you is not necessarily true for me."

This is a different thought than what is true for me is true as that thought is not at all undermining truth and instead is speaking to ones perception of truth. Yet, the notion that a truth can be one thing for one person and another thing for another person, does undermine truth in that it suggests that truth is malleable. Truth is truth regardless of how we perceive it.

I make this distinction only because of some of the examples you have given. I realize that you have clarified that just because others would not see the Jesus I see does not necessarily make them right or me wrong and it could very well be that I am seeing Jesus because there is a Jesus to see and perhaps I am seeing Jesus where others are not because even though people think me insane, I am instead at a very high level of awareness and able to perceive what others can not. Or, I am truly insane and am hallucinating.

However, when one feels they communicate better through the use of opiates or drugs or alcohol, while it may be true for them, it is doubtful this is true. There is just to much empirical data to suggest that alcohol or other opiates impair our physiology and hinder our ability to communicate. If this is true, that opiates hinder our ability to communicate then no matter how true it may be for those who believe it enhances their ability to communicate, it is just not true.

A person who believes he or she communicates better through the use of drugs or alcohol will believe this is true for as long as they believe it is true. But, communication is a difficult task and requires much more than just the facility of language and the ability to speak it or write it. Communication requires listening to those of whom we are communicating and to come to understand not just what is being said but also what is not being said. There is much more to communication than just feeling confident in vocalizing ones thoughts. Even what I have spoken to is just a fraction of what is actually required in communication.

One of the most important aspects of communication is honesty, or to put it more succinctly; truth! When we lie to others we are not truly communicating to them but instead attempting to manipulate them. Being honest doesn't necessarily mean that we have a handle on the truth either. It is, in my humble opinion, a profound statement this quote; "what is true for you is true." and I feel as if I am to some degree quibbling with you on your interpretation but felt compelled to do so because of how remarkably profound the statement is.

I don't think I could delve into its profundity in just one post and rather than post a series of posts dissecting its meaning and postulating on what truth is or isn't, I though I would share these thoughts first and wait for your reply just to better understand where you are coming from and how that relates to my own understanding of this quote. Great thread though, thanks for sharing it.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Excellent response. Very informative. I do have some questions though.


However, if I am insane and all my truth is based upon my own insanity, I am most likely not correct in my understanding of truth, which is irrelevant to me while I am insane and correct or not what is true for me is still true. Contrary to this believe that "what is true for you is true" is another believe which states:


If we are insane, then is it truly us? If we have no control over our senses, I would have to say no. To be truly us we have to be in control of true selves. Otherwise we are puppets. With that being said, how do we know what our true self is without looking inside of ourselves? To deeply concentrate on the search for our inner truths. Only then can we be able to explain whatever signals we are sending.


However, when one feels they communicate better through the use of opiates or drugs or alcohol, while it may be true for them, it is doubtful this is true. There is just to much empirical data to suggest that alcohol or other opiates impair our physiology and hinder our ability to communicate. If this is true, that opiates hinder our ability to communicate then no matter how true it may be for those who believe it enhances their ability to communicate, it is just not true.


As a truth I feel that all communication through any means is viable as long as the truth is perceived. I feel that when you hear the truth and know it inside yourself, justification of the source is rendered. A feeling inside of each of us resonates when the truth is heard. That resonation has to be studied through the feeling of it. The more truth you hear or think of the more we can study it. As of righting this it feels like it resonates from our dna and every fiber of my being.


I don't think I could delve into its profundity in just one post and rather than post a series of posts dissecting its meaning and postulating on what truth is or isn't, I though I would share these thoughts first and wait for your reply just to better understand where you are coming from and how that relates to my own understanding of this quote. Great thread though, thanks for sharing it.


Thank you very much for your views. They have helped me look at it from a new perspective and has added greatly to this thread. Way to go.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


It is a good question to ask; if we are insane is it truly us? I think first a distinction should be made between brain damage and how that affects a persons perceptions and insanity. I don't believe that insanity is the result of any brain damage. Of course, what is true for me is true and I could be wrong. I do not think that any medical professional has been able to definitively point to any portion of the brain that is damaged to show it is the source of insanity. Indeed, many so called "psychosis" such as schizophrenia are hotly debated between psychiatrists. And there are those psychiatrists who question the reality of schizophrenia.

Consider these words by Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist known for being one of the leading figures in the "anti-psychiatry" movement:

"If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."

Szazs questions the notion that mental illness is actually a disease as this insanity is marked by behavior alone as opposed to disease which is an affliction one has. While disease can greatly influence a persons behavior, insanity is influenced by behavior alone. Thus, a disease is an affliction that a person has and insane behavior is marked by what people do.

Brain damage, on the other hand, will greatly affect how we behave. Even so, are we truly less of who we are because of this brain damage or are we just handicapped by it and does that handicap define who we are or only add to the experience that is us?

I am not even sure that it would be correct to say that if we have no control over our senses then it is not truly us. In fact, you admittedly are not so sure of that yourself. You speak of self reflection and surely a deaf person is just as capable of self reflection as those who can hear. A person who has no sense of smell can still engage in self reflection just the same as those who can smell odors. The real questions then, becomes who are we? Are we just a physical body bound to our physiology or are we something more that merely inhabits that physiology.

To engage in self reflection suggests that perhaps we are more than just a body. Even more interestingly is the language we use to describe self reflection. Just the term "self reflection" alone is an inadequate description of what we are communicating when we use this term. For surely, when we are engaged in self reflection we are doing something more than looking at our physical selves in a mirror, aren't we? We are, as you put it, "looking inside of ourselves" and yet, it is not as if we are rolling our eyeballs inward to peer deep into the insides of our physiology. In fact, when we "look inside ourselves" we are not even using our eyes at all, at least not to look inward.

Who then, are we "looking at" when we self reflect? Are we not looking at ourselves? Who is that if not our physical self? Is our consciousness a part of our physical body and if it is, just where the hell is it? What do we mean when we refer to our souls? Are souls the same as consciousness? Who the hell are we, truly?

A clarification on my musings that opiates seem to hinder communication; if it is indeed true for a person that they feel much more comfortable communicating through the use of opiates, then I certainly pass no judgment on that and as one who spent more than a decade tending bar, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that people shouldn't drink, and this is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that we need not rely on chemicals to communicate and having tended bar for as long as I have, it is hard to forget how difficult it was to understand the slurred ramblings of someone drunk on booze.

Even so, many of those who were drunk and rambling in a slurred communication often were expressing feelings of love, and I am not referring to lust but love. We as people tend to build up defense mechanisms that inhibit our true feelings. We sometimes are not even aware of these defense mechanisms and perhaps this is why we will turn to chemicals such as booze to loosen up those defenses rather than overcome our defense mechanisms naturally.

I have often heard alcohol referred to as truth juice, as many people believe that the truth will come out of a drunks mouth sooner than it would if they were sober. This can be true but not always and many a drinker will invent the most amusing lies while enjoying the buzz of libations. If alcohol brings pleasure to a person then this is good. It ceases to be a good thing when they have become addicted to alcohol and then the only pleasure they get is the relief of a physical need based upon that addiction, but I digress. I simply wanted to clarify that I am not speaking against alcohol or any other chemical, only speaking to what I believe to be true, which is that we probably do our best communication when we are sober and at an emotional level above anger, and communicate even better when our level of awareness is beyond our own physical self.

As this thread seems to exist to distinguish between truth and fiction, what is truth and what is fiction? It is interesting to note that fictional novels that achieve classic standing do so because they speak to truth. William Shakespeare is as known and respected as he is because he seemed to have a gift for speaking truth through his fictions. Indeed, even his "historical" plays are merely the reliance on historical figures to facilitate his fiction and in turn to speak to some kind of truth. Wow!

Conversely, how many history books are nothing more than thinly disguised works of propaganda? If it is true that history is written by the victors then this suggest there is another side to that history not being told, and as such if any truth is being told at all it is a half truth and are half truths actually truth? Are we capable, being inherently subjective, of ever really knowing truth or are we truly inherently subjective? Questions, questions, questions. Will any answers we find to these questions only lead to more questions?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Once again very good information and well said.

It is funny indeed that we enter this world, relying only on the senses that we are aware of learning in the truest sense of the word. As we grow older it is mostly outside sources of information that we stockpile in our internal database. Along with all this information comes confusion and internal conflict about which information is the right information. So maybe it is the internal search for answers that are the most true. Once we can gain understanding of how to even search properly, which I really do not know how, then we can begin to understand how to search outwardly properly.

Great insight.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by SalkinVictory
 



Originally posted by Conclusion
Let us give careful consideration to every thing we know as truth to our self and share what we know with each other.


This is a great sentence, and sums up quite much of what I said!

It only misses the part of the people that AREN'T at that level yet, and are still learning!

Great sentence though!

[edit on 5-1-2010 by SalkinVictory]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by InertiaZero
 


Let us in here focus on changing ourselves to what we know as the truth, along the way maybe someone else will be helped. You seem to understand a lot of things from the post's I have seen of yours. I will try to read all your posts to see if I can understand where you come from. Both of you. Let us three in hear now start a new gesture. The gesture of friendship.


I'm 100% into this!

It's all about being positive in front of everyone. Make people feel wanted, appreciated, and that their opinions are highly valued, and they will start to evolve themselves!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Hey Jean Paul Zodeaux.

I tried quoting your reply and answering bit by bit, but it didn't work and the reply box had some funny errors.

I'll do it this way where I pick out what paragraph I want to answer and so forth! By the way, great reply, both of them above me!

----

"This is an interesting thread and thanks for posting it. I would like to jump in and begin, ironically, by questioning your interpretation of the quote you provided:

"What is true for you is true."

It is interesting to me that you have not acknowledged the author of that quote and I am hesitant to do so myself, only because I wouldn't want to see this thread derailed in discussions about the author and his beliefs versus what you are attempting to discuss. That said, you have used enough language in this thread to suggest to me that you know something of the beliefs of this author and I remain uncertain that your interpretation of that quote is correct. How ironic no?"

MY REPLY:

Well, I do know who the author is, and I choose not to give names, since people get all rattled up once that specific name is added, and I'd like this thread to be about this subject alone, and like you said, not be derailed into other conversations. Good job spotting by the way, and yes, I am part of that, but wish not to use it here since it will change the whole subject into something else as people, especially with knowing something like that, start to generalize, and not concentrate on the importance of the topic.

Just so you know, I always try to communicate only what I (emphasizing I) am able to aplly in life, and if I am able to USE that of what I've learnt, then I will communicate it. I will never communicate something just because it's been taught by for example, that author, unless it works for me, at least.

Hope you understand what I mean!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


BY JEAN PAUL ZODEAUX:

Either you have interpreted the quote correctly and therefore are right in your interpretation and my own interpretation then would be necessarily wrong or vice versa or even that both of us are wrong or maybe both of us correct. Here is how I interpret:

"What is true for you is true."

All of us come to believe that things are true through our experience and the level of awareness we are at while experiencing it and the level of awareness we are at during any time. Further, we are profoundly affected by our emotional states and these levels of emotions can either be positive and more conducive to wisdom or negative and filter out our wisdom.

If I am at an emotional state of serenity the truth will look different to me than it will if I am at an emotional state of anger or depression or feel a need to control others, or feel a need to submit to others, etc., etc., etc., and of all these various emotional states there is always the truth. How I see the truth is not necessarily the truth but regardless as long as I see the truth in a certain way, then that is what is true for me.

However, if I am insane and all my truth is based upon my own insanity, I am most likely not correct in my understanding of truth, which is irrelevant to me while I am insane and correct or not what is true for me is still true. Contrary to this believe that "what is true for you is true" is another believe which states:

"What is true for you is not necessarily true for me."

This is a different thought than what is true for me is true as that thought is not at all undermining truth and instead is speaking to ones perception of truth. Yet, the notion that a truth can be one thing for one person and another thing for another person, does undermine truth in that it suggests that truth is malleable. Truth is truth regardless of how we perceive it.

MY REPLY:

Here is a perfect example of the quote: "What is true for you, is true for you!

I believe, that I have understood it correctly.

Now, there you added something Very important to my thread which I forget! (Oh, dumb me! ^^)

You speak of awareness, which is great. A drunk man who can barely walk, is not very aware! He is therefore subject to change in reality, but again, reality is how you see it, whatever state you are in.

BUT, I do so hate the word Reality!
Reality: What is apparent.
Actuality: What is ACTUAL!

I agree with you 100% that when completely aware, one is subject to far greater and true amounts of Truth, that would one be drunk.
It's very complex, and I believe that it changes with every single situation you are in.

Like you said, when one is insane, the truth would most likely be built up upon insanity.

I like that you put this quote in:
"What is true for you is not necessarily true for me."

I'm thinking to myself now, as many quotes as this author has made, he must have come past this one.
In my own opinion, I'd love to say he didn't use it (or maybe he did?) because like you said, it burns truth, puts it down in some way, and if you were to use that quote in a sentence with someone, it would sound degrading and putting the other person in an awkward state, and is actually not accepting him as he is and not granting beingness!

But, the quote is true, and it can be applied.
Like you said: "Truth is truth regardless of how we perceive it."

That sentence of yours would actually take away our doubts on if a person is still seeing truth as it is for him Even if he is under drugs, alchohol etc.

I have to be honest, I am not completely sure of how it is when you go down awareness.

I'd like to say that it's best we stay up in awareness which automatically gives Positivity, and therefore much faster can handle things in life.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


BY JEAN PAUL ZODEAUX:

However, when one feels they communicate better through the use of opiates or drugs or alcohol, while it may be true for them, it is doubtful this is true. There is just to much empirical data to suggest that alcohol or other opiates impair our physiology and hinder our ability to communicate. If this is true, that opiates hinder our ability to communicate then no matter how true it may be for those who believe it enhances their ability to communicate, it is just not true.

MY REPLY:

Great paragraph, I'd love to answer!
Let's take your example of a man on Opium. (Maybe I got it wrong, sorry if so.)
This man on Opium is in your paragraph, believing that it will help him to communicate. Therefore, it is no longer the drug that helps him communicate, but his belief that WHEN he takes it, it WILL help him!
So therefore, it is true for him that it helps, whether or not it is the drug.

This is where the quote goes very deep. Even into CHANGING ones opinions completely from what the physical word says.

We are all living in our own universes. All of us looking from ONE point of ourselves, Outwards. So you can say, we are all Centers. All of us can think we are right because we are the center of ourselves and only we are in that center. (Maybe that paragraph is a little messy, but I hope you get the point!)

Anyways, remember that Harry Potter movie (lol example) where Harry tells Ron that he gave him this potion so that now he CANNOT lose no matter what, even if he tried.

Harry didn't give him this potion, but the fact that he believed it, basically made that potion work, On him.

But I agree with you that communication is best served WITHOUT anything affecting it as in drugs or alchohol!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


BY JEAN PAUL ZODEAUX:

A person who believes he or she communicates better through the use of drugs or alcohol will believe this is true for as long as they believe it is true. But, communication is a difficult task and requires much more than just the facility of language and the ability to speak it or write it. Communication requires listening to those of whom we are communicating and to come to understand not just what is being said but also what is not being said. There is much more to communication than just feeling confident in vocalizing ones thoughts. Even what I have spoken to is just a fraction of what is actually required in communication.

One of the most important aspects of communication is honesty, or to put it more succinctly; truth! When we lie to others we are not truly communicating to them but instead attempting to manipulate them. Being honest doesn't necessarily mean that we have a handle on the truth either. It is, in my humble opinion, a profound statement this quote; "what is true for you is true." and I feel as if I am to some degree quibbling with you on your interpretation but felt compelled to do so because of how remarkably profound the statement is.

I don't think I could delve into its profundity in just one post and rather than post a series of posts dissecting its meaning and postulating on what truth is or isn't, I though I would share these thoughts first and wait for your reply just to better understand where you are coming from and how that relates to my own understanding of this quote. Great thread though, thanks for sharing it.

MY REPLY:

Just to let your know, your thread was a great help and you are in no way that I feel, quiblling with me. It really is important to get every detail inside the box. Especially since this whole thread is about EVERYONE's viewpoints on what is true and what is fiction!

I love that you come to the communication part!

Always remember that whatever I say is coming from what I believe, it is solely my opinions on what works.

A communication is a flow. An energy flow. If I even just look at you on the street, that is a communication, even if you don't look back.

I looked at you, (for some reason) and you became apparent to me, you are there now, I see you and I show that I saw you by looking at you.

If you look as well, we see 2 people with eye/foot/anybodypartcontact! ^^.

Communication like you said, is SO much more than talking.
For me, is it an energy flow.
When said like that, communication can even be telekinesis.

Let's say one has a quarrel with one's girlfriend. She leaves, and one buys a flower and puts it on the table for her to see it. Isn't that a beautiful communication of a sorry? Hey, not trying to be all romantic all of a sudden!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It's great that we've come to the point of talking about insanity and it's relation to this.

I must say, all my opinions on this will be opinions, and I can't say that I am experienced on it.

First of all, according to Psychiatry's DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) we are ALL mentally ill in some way or another. I am really disgusted over an organization like Psychiatry, because they can go for infatns saying they cry too much and give them pills, tell a child he can't study properly and give him drugs for that, even though he might just not have understood something in his studies that he needed clarified!

I'm sure that some become a Psychiatrist for great reasons and they wish to save people, and some for money.

Anyways, I agree that it is behavior solely. The way you act, because of something.

BY JEAN PAUL:

Brain damage, on the other hand, will greatly affect how we behave. Even so, are we truly less of who we are because of this brain damage or are we just handicapped by it and does that handicap define who we are or only add to the experience that is us?

MY REPLY:

This is a great one. I'm not sure I'd be able to answer this fully, since it would propably require me being in that situation to truly understand it!

I think most are still THERE, aware of what's happening, yet cannot do much about it. And some cannot pass through the point of being a child.

Oh well, I can't say much about that one. Maybe someone else will have to take that one!

--

To start going into the subject of self-relection and WHO are we looking at, or what, wow, that's a whole other subject whcih would require thousands of threads


Thank you so much for your opinions Jean Paul!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join