The Principal of Truth

Truth should be like a Diamond, no matter how deep it is, or bury it, it will still shine an cut through most things.

Goes without saying though, about Objective an Subjective truths. Where is to say that if there actually is an utlimate or final objective might actually is subjective. While the subjective could be filled with a bunch half truths mixed with falsehoods could be the only real objective.

a reply to: Specimen88

Thank You for giving your Wisdom... It made me think of string theory, which made someone ask the question in my mind.. "Is String theory Subjective or Objective?"

When we say Objective, we are saying there is something here we can measure, or place a measurement on, that we may use it in a mathematical setting and through mathematics attempt to "Prove" its existence and thereby explain it's effect upon our reality? An attempt to make the thing an Objective Affectual Process of an Objectively Observable Effect.

But I assert to you that some of the Diamonds of reality are not always Objectively Observable in the Material Realm, and/or provable, save in the Subjective realm of of Quantum Theory...Maybe?

Spirit is the Subjective topic. Is it provable? Can we Observe Objectively, Effects of some Unobservable Force like Cosmic Strings or an Act of Bravery; And if so, are there other Unobservable Affects that we cannot see and measure in the Spirit realm, which produce Observable Effects in this realm?

Show me a cup of Love.

What is the Speed of Courage?

How destructive is an ounce of Rage?

What is the weight of Sacrifice and Honor?

How bright is the Candle Lumens of Truth when it is found Objectively through Scientific Discovery?
Or, through Subjective Soul Searching?

Is it safe to place Objective Quantization upon Unobservable things like Strings or Souls?

I think as both Have Relevant and in some cases Significant Effects on our reality, we all owe it to ourselves to try...

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Khurzon


The Aether/Ether/Astral plane, or whatever term you want to use for it,

If you don't know what the correct term to call it, how do you expect everyone else to know what you are talking about? Each person will chose whatever term he or she favours and then your discussion will mean something different for each person, causing intellectual pandemonium. It is very important to define exactly what you mean, instead of sprinkling three or four words around that mean entirely different things (not, as you seem to think, the same thing).

The Aether is NOT the Ether, and the Astral Plane is not the same as either concept. Let me explain:

There are seven planes of consciousness involved in the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. They represent the winding path of reincarnation through many lives of the spiritual soul towards the Divine Life. Beyond them are six cosmic planes of consciousness that represent ineffable states of cosmic being within the Life of God ("Nirvana"). Each plane is divided into seven levels or subplanes. This makes a total of 91 subplanes, where 91 = 1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 + 5^2 + 6^2. There are seven, not five, cosmic elements ("tattvas"). They are differentiations of one, universal cosmic substance. The Elements of Earth, Water, Air & Fire correspond to the lowest four planes. Aether, the fifth Element, corresponds to the fifth plane where the Divine Self functions. It is the counterpart of the "transcendent function" in the Jungian classification system of five cognitive functions (sensing, feeling, thinking, intuiting and their integration or union in the fifth function). The physical plane is the material universe, the 4-d space-time continuum (and its hyperdimensional generalisation in superstring theory and M-theory). It corresponds to the Element Earth. The lowest three subplanes denote the awareness of the mineral, vegetable and animal forms of life. Coexisting with them but invisble to normal human sight are four levels of etheric life. They are the source of the rich folklore of many countries concerning fairies, pixies, elves, etc. The etheric world exists in the 9-d space-time sheet of E8-singlet states of matter predicted by E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory to exist alongside the sheet containing E8'-singlet states but separated by a narrow gap stretching along the tenth dimension of space predicted by supergravity theories, as incorporated in M-theory. The astral plane is the second of the seven planes of consciousness. It is the domain of many deceased people (Category 2 souls), whilst they spiritually evolve (some do not) towards the next (or higher) planes of being, populated by Category 3 souls. True ghosts (i.e., conscious human spirits) do not exist in the astral subplanes; they function as unfortunate, earthbound spirits in the etheric subplanes. So do the elementals and certain types of UFO occupants, who originate in distant, planetary systems but who have developed the technology to travel in the second (etheric) universe that complements the universe known to astronomers. We, too, (or, rather, part of us) exist in the etheric universe, although we are normally (and, thankfully) unaware of it. When we have out-of-the-body experiences, we become aware of moving in either the etheric universe parallel to the material one or the astral plane. The latter is the more common.

As I said, it is important to be precise in one's choice of terms in order to discuss the invisible realms of consciousness, otherwise much confusion can result.

First I would like to humbly thank you for your intellectual insight...it is astounding to hear that there is a "Quantum Theory" to discover the states of the Immaterial world, I don't think I've ever even heard of M-theory.

So when referring to the non-material I should use the term "Ether" okay.

I'll have to go over your post many times....there is alot there to decipher and absorb..Thank you Friend...Many times.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Peeple

Rather than Ishtar, I lean towards the Eightfold Path. Plus working in petals of eight is much simpler than other numbers as they break down into quarters and eighths for putting together into a whole work.

Thank you for that link friend...

I have learned soo much this Tide of the Yule Festival..."When checking your posts, always start at the First Page for you might miss a gem or two..."

...I'd also like to Thank a Certain Horse I know for "Schooling me" in Proper Hebrew". I can say that I think it was a Proper Frame for the Unfolding of the Beauty in the Art and Science displayed herein...and I will add, the Compassion and Truth's of all who have put Their mark Upon this Yule Tide Card...

...Now if I could only hang it on the Tree!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Peeple

Symbols abound Peep, I"m pretty sure you know. We can find them when we need them or when we want them.

This piece I was just happening to be working on in October when I heard about that Full Blue Moon we had two months ago and so found a perfect title for it.

Most of my work includes highly intricate labyrinth work such as that Tree above but sometimes just a hint of a labyrinth suffices. Like this one a field of background stars works well.

Yes...I can feel the qualities of the Moon in it. I once made a Haiku Called "Moon"

I think it went something like this....

"Up floating silent...

Boon of the Night Harvest...

Journey of an Age...

*It might not be a Proper Haiku.....

But I like it!

a reply to: Khurzon

Haikus. I have a difficult time digesting them. Strange though, in many other ways I am quite appreciative of minimalism. Composers like Glass and Adams I find to be moving.

When It comes to my own word composition I have pretty much resigned to writing limericks.
There once was a cowboy named Khurson
Who rode the cold range with no furson
One night was so cold
that he died and it's told
That they buried him deep with his spurson.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Khurzon

Haikus. I have a difficult time digesting them. Strange though, in many other ways I am quite appreciative of minimalism. Composers like Glass and Adams I find to be moving.

When It comes to my own word composition I have pretty much resigned to writing limericks.
There once was a cowboy named Khurson
Who rode the cold range with no furson
One night was so cold
that he died and it's told
That they buried him deep with his spurson.

lol....that's great!

Yes...I write alot of Pros to help me understand and cope with what's happened to me in my "Little Boy Blue" thread, as well as in replies to many other posts over the years...

originally posted by: Khurzon

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Khurzon

Haikus. I have a difficult time digesting them. Strange though, in many other ways I am quite appreciative of minimalism. Composers like Glass and Adams I find to be moving.

When It comes to my own word composition I have pretty much resigned to writing limericks.
There once was a cowboy named Khurson
Who rode the cold range with no furson
One night was so cold
that he died and it's told
That they buried him deep with his spurson.

lol....that's great!

Yes...I write a lot of Pros to help me understand and cope with what's happened to me in my "Little Boy Blue" thread, as well as in some of the many "replies" I've written in posts over the years...

edit on 28-12-2020 by Khurzon because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2020 by Khurzon because: (no reason given)

dbl post

edit on 28-12-2020 by Khurzon because: dbl post

edit on 28-12-2020 by Khurzon because: double post

edit on 28-12-2020 by Khurzon because: (no reason given)

Gha!! Triple Post Sorry Folks...

The Hebrew term ʼemethʹ, often rendered “truth” in Bible translations, may designate that which is firm, trustworthy, stable, faithful, true, or established as fact. (Ex 18:21; 34:6; De 13:14; 17:4; 22:20; Jos 2:12; 2Ch 18:15; 31:20; Ne 7:2; 9:33; Es 9:30; Ps 15:2; Ec 12:10; Jer 9:5) The Greek word a·leʹthei·a stands in contrast with falsehood or unrighteousness and denotes that which conforms to fact or to what is right and proper. (Mr 5:33; 12:32; Lu 4:25; Joh 3:21; Ro 2:8; 1Co 13:6; Php 1:18; 2Th 2:10, 12; 1Jo 1:6, 8; 2:4, 21) A number of other original-language expressions can, depending upon the context, also be translated “truth.”

The word “amen” in both English and Greek is a transliteration from the Hebrew ʼa·menʹ. The meaning is “so be it,” or “surely.” The Hebrew root word from which it is drawn (ʼa·manʹ) means “be faithful; be trustworthy.”

In the Hebrew Scriptures the word is used as a solemn expression to obligate oneself legally to an oath or covenant and its consequences (Nu 5:22; De 27:15-26; Ne 5:13), also as a solemn expression to subscribe to an expressed prayer (1Ch 16:36), to an expression of praise (Ne 8:6), or to an expressed purpose (1Ki 1:36; Jer 11:5). Each of the first four books, or collections, of the Psalms concludes with this expression, perhaps indicating that it was customary for the congregation of Israel to join in at the end of the song or psalm with an “Amen.”​—Ps 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48.

The Hebrew word ʼa·manʹ is applied to Jehovah as “the faithful God” (De 7:9; Isa 49:7) and describes his reminders and promises as “trustworthy” and “faithful.” (Ps 19:7; 89:28, 37) In the Christian Greek Scriptures the title “Amen” is applied to Christ Jesus as “the faithful and true witness.” (Re 3:14) Jesus made singular use of the expression in his preaching and teaching, using it very often to preface a statement of fact, a promise, or a prophecy, thereby emphasizing the absolute truthfulness and reliability of what he said. (Mt 5:18; 6:2, 5, 16; 24:34) In these cases the Greek word (a·menʹ) is translated as “truly” (KJ, “verily”) or, when doubled, as throughout the book of John, “most truly.” (Joh 1:51) Jesus’ use of “amen” in this way is said to be unique in sacred literature, and it was consistent with his divinely given authority.​—Mt 7:29.

However, as Paul shows at 2 Corinthians 1:19, 20, the title “Amen” applies to Jesus not merely as a truth speaker or as a true prophet and spokesman of God but also as the one in whom all of God’s promises find fulfillment. His course of faithfulness and obedience even to a sacrificial death confirms and makes possible the bringing to reality of all the promises and declarations of God’s purpose. He was the living Truth of those revelations of God’s purpose, the things to which God had sworn.​—Compare Joh 1:14, 17; 14:6; 18:37.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future​—everlasting life.​—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? ...

Some people use the word "subjective" rather than "relative", but if you look closer into the way they're talking about it, the idea is either the same or very similar to the attitude possibly demonstrated by Pontius Pilate there, as if truth is too elusive to grasp. The article below has another way of putting it:

Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers​—What Did They Find?

“WHAT is truth?” That was the question that Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of Judea in the first century, asked of Jesus, who was on trial before the governor. (John 18:38) Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.

Churchgoers in 16th-century Europe faced the dilemma of what to believe as truth. Raised to believe in the supremacy of the pope and in other teachings of the church, they were confronted with new ideas spread by the Reformation, which was sweeping through Europe at the time. What should they believe? How would they decide what is truth?

During that period, there were, among many others, three men who were determined to seek out the truth.* How did they go about identifying what was true and what was false? And what did they find? Let us see.

“LET THE BIBLE . . . ALWAYS RULE SUPREME”

...

You can also find it ("This disdainful attitude toward truth") in what the writers of South Park have phrased as the Agnostic Code:


It's one of Satan's favorite brainwashing tools and philosophies to keep people in the dark regarding the truths (and knowledge/science) that matter most, the truth that will set people free from his system of things, his system of manipulation, deception and falsehood, as “the father of the lie” and “god of this system of things” (John 8:44; 2Cor 4:4):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

Promoting agnosticism of that sort (as if truth is too elusive to grasp) as Satan likes to do, discourages truthseeking. 'What's the point if you can never be certain about anything anyway?' is the notion being promoted there to discourage anyone from even trying to ascertain the truth/certainty of a matter, especially matters involving the existence of God and his will and purpose for mankind, including what we could do to reciprocate and appreciate God's gift(s) to us; and give credit where credit is due (and not simply incorrectly or falsely ascribe these things to 'Mother Nature' instead, as is generally done in this system of things and in particular in the entertainment industry that has such a huge impact and influence on human thinking and opinion):





A slash (/) means that I'm using synonyms there in this comment.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
You can also find it ("This disdainful attitude toward truth") in what the writers of South Park have phrased as the Agnostic Code:

It's one of Satan's favorite brainwashing tools and philosophies to keep people in the dark regarding the truths (and knowledge/science) that matter most, the truth that will set people free from his system of things, his system of manipulation, deception and falsehood, as “the father of the lie” and “god of this system of things” (John 8:44; 2Cor 4:4):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

Promoting agnosticism of that sort (as if truth is too elusive to grasp) as Satan likes to do, discourages truthseeking. 'What's the point if you can never be certain about anything anyway?' is the notion being promoted there to discourage anyone from even trying to ascertain the truth/certainty of a matter, especially matters involving the existence of God and his will and purpose for mankind, including what we could do to reciprocate and appreciate God's gift(s) to us; and give credit where credit is due (...

And it's right there in the final conclusion of South Park's Agnostic Code (the bolded notion and 'giving up'-attitude, as in what's the point, you're not going to figure it out with certainty anyway). Agnosticism is the death of genuine truth seeking.

If you want to use slightly more metaphorical language, otherwise, you can phrase that as I did before, promoting agnosticism discourages truth seeking. The more a person sees merit in the type of agnostic* claims you can also see in South Park's Agnostic Code for example, the more likely this person will not attempt to ascertain the truth/certainty of something, especially theological matters (what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes, rather than using the perspective of our own flawed human societies and human philosophy).

*: these claims are agnostically motivated, or rooted in agnosticism, yet if you look carefully, the claims themselves are absolute, they are claiming that something is the situation, that it is certain/true/factual/absolute/correct, without error that we cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exist, and that it is certain that there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. These are statements of supposed facts/truths/certainties, they are claims about something that according to the claim is absolute/true/certain/factual/correct, without error (all synonyms). In that sense, most of such claims made by agnostics are self-defeating. Cause general agnosticism (as in applied to all subjects, as if you can't be certain about anything, which already shines through and is implied in South Park's Agnostic Code) as expressed by many agnostics in how they talk about it, cannot be certain about its own claims, so what is actually "pointless to talk about" (using the phrase at the end of the Agnostic Code) is the very claims being made as if that actually/factually is the situation of the matter.

Even more so once you realize that that's not actually the reality of the situation, cause there are many things we can discover, ascertain and know for certain. Isaac Newton showed the way when he described the facts/certainties/realities/truths concerning how the force of gravity behaves in the law of gravity. Which stands unrefuted till this day (in spite of some false impressions some theoretical physicists or media personalities may have left you with). It has withstood the test of time. Here is the methodology Newton used the ascertain and discover these truths/certainties/facts/realities concerning gravity:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

He used the same scientific methodology to ascertain the truth regarding God's existence. Reaching the conclusion (by induction based on the evidence) that God indeed exists. Many others including myself have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence by means of inductive reasoning.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

You can practice this form of reasoning in the playlist I linked there entitled "Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories". Cause after all, as Hebrews 5:14 says, “solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.”

Synonyms for “right” and “wrong” are “true/correct” and “false/incorrect, in error”. Just as a reminder how this ties in to the subject of truth.

The videos I shared earlier in my previous comment, are also meant to encourage inductive reasoning about the subjects being sung about or discussed and shown. There are a few more from the playlist I like to highlight here.

Here's Michael Behe about inductive reasoning, including the quote I just gave you from the Encyclopaedia Britannica which is at 38:07 (you probably shouldn't skip right there though, the context is important, especially starting at 30:08):

Isaac Newton applying inductive reasoning and his brilliant mind to subjects such as God's existence and the designs one can observe all around us, in particular regarding our solar system, gravity but also the design of animals. Also applying inductive reasoning to other subjects such as light and gravity and a demonstration of the effectiveness and reliability of his methodology (that I quoted earlier from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which is mentioned as well):

...Amen

Bravo! Well Done...No let me rather say, Extraordinarily Well Put Together!

There is a lot here I didn't know...some I was told, and some I arrived at Inductively on my own, but it is all relative to mine own thoughts, and a True Blessing/Gift from you to me and this forum.

Thank You...Thank You Good Sir! *tips hat and bows*