a different take on truth vs lie :(

H

Hildegarda

Guest
I have been writing about sociopathy, egoism and altruism on my blog. That prompted a lot of soul-searching in one of the regular readers. I make no diagnosis in this case -- judging from her other writings, she appears to have 'diagnosed' herself already, in other words, she has been aware of her nature in some way for a long time.

I wanted to offer for your consideration an example of someone's take on the often mentioned subject of Truth vs Lie. It is a view that is very foreign to me, and diametrally oppose what this site and this Work are based on. It is mind-blowing in a way, because I can't help thinking how many more decent, law abiding people around me think like this and live by this. Everything we read about and learn about really hits home:


I can't remember if truth ever meant much in my life. I can count on the fingers of one hand all the times when I really wanted to let someone know the truth, when it was extremely important. It is rare that I am lacking attention so much that I would attempt to attract it using this extreme, irrational and ineffective method. With all that, I get very upset if in such situation I am 'found guilty' of telling the truth.

I began to tell the truth when I understood that no one has any criteria that would allow to distinguish the truth from a lie, with a high degree of precision. This means that one can tell the truth without consequences, same as lying! It was a real discovery that opened many extra doors:

- if someone didn't like my truth, I could say it was a lie, and enjoy peace and quiet.

- if someone didn't like my truth, I could maintain that it is truth, and fele proud of my principles.

- if someone didn't like my lie, I could say it was truth, and enjoy the other persons's confusion.

- if someone didn't like my lie, I could confirm it was a lie, and watch the other person feeling proud of his power of perception.

- if someone liked my lie, I could say that it is nothing but the truth, and bask in the sun rays of another's person's happiness.

- if someone liked my lie, I could say it is a lie, and have a nice juicy argument.

- if someone liked my truth, I could say it was a lie, and enjoy the feeling of power and security.

- if someone liked my truth, I could admit it is the whole truth, and enjoy openness and mutual understanding.

So it looks like I learned to use a truth as certain means, but still has no clue why anyone would need a truth as goal and an end, in and of itself.

**

I usually say whatever comes to mind, without much thought as to whether it happen to be truth or lie. It is indeed very simple. Before, I used to wonder whether truth and lie have some special meaning and significance, but then, I settled on the thought that, from everything that is ever said, very little has any meaning and significance.

However, if I get myself in the situation when what was said has great importance either for me, or for a person I am talking to - that's incredibly stressful. Then I have to think, and there is no time to be lazy. In such situations the truth brings about such an adrenalin rush, that no lie could stand the comparison.
Click to expand...
 
That is truly bizarre. What is interesting is the thought that went into describing the parameters. It's like a reality built on shifting sand.
 
It seems that each of these conditional statements has some kind of beneficial outcome for the person espousing this "philosophy". It's all about their enjoyment, happiness, or whatever they feel they want at the time. If it doesn't service the goal of "get me the things I like and avoid the things I dislike", then they obviously don't see the relevance of it.

It is, quite simply, very selfish.
 
Very interesting. I can't help but think that this view on truth applies so well to such 911-Truthers as Victor Thorn and Alex Jones. My impression of them is that he gets a kick out of telling a 'truth' to people who can't accept it. They really have contempt for the 'mob' of sheeple and enjoy stepping on sacred cows, getting a rush as they cause cognitive dissonance in ordinary people. Those that agree with them give them support and adulation.

The truth is a feeding mechanism for them. When it is convenient, it can be used to get a rush.
 
"I can't remember if truth ever meant much in my life."

This statement makes me inexpressibly sad.

Truth ... the search for it ... the attempt to clarify what is 'real' from what is not, has been the focal point of my life since as early as I can remember. Truly. I cannot remember a time when this compelling seeking for 'truth' was not with me.

I suspect that many on this Forum - with the exception, perhaps, of a few dilettantes and a few more professional disinformationists - I suspect that most here have always been similarly motivated. Actually, I'm quite sure of it.

Seeking the truth is a guiding star ... like magnetic north.

And yet, how many in our world feel the same way as this lady?

How many people do you come across for whom the real search for truth is an inexplicable, unconsidered, even despised and ridiculed, pursuit? How many people laugh at you, crack a seriousness-destroying joke, or cast their eyebrows as if you are mad, when occasionally you try to interject 'truth' into a social milieu?

I think the state of our world may hold a clue to the percentage. It is high.

And yet this is their choice. Such choice as they are able, maybe, at this time, to make. We have no business forcing our priorities upon them. But does it not make you sad?

Could you live your life without 'truth' ever meaning very much to you?

Think about it.

Does not the 'truth' exercise your mind, emotions and will for at least some portion of EVERY day?

So for someone who can say: "I can't remember if truth ever meant much in my life." ... which is even worse, in my opinion, than making the active decision that they will ignore truth in the pursuit of their own ends ... in other words, 'truth', 'knowledge', does not even seem to have registered ....

This makes me sad.

All the rest is manipulation:

"I began to tell the truth when I understood that no one has any criteria that would allow to distinguish the truth from a lie, with a high degree of precision. This means that one can tell the truth without consequences, same as lying! It was a real discovery that opened many extra doors:

- if someone didn't like my truth, I could say it was a lie, and enjoy peace and quiet.

- if someone didn't like my truth, I could maintain that it is truth, and feel proud of my principles.

- if someone didn't like my lie, I could say it was truth, and enjoy the other persons's confusion.

- if someone didn't like my lie, I could confirm it was a lie, and watch the other person felling is proud of his power of perception.

- if someone liked my lie, I could say that it is nothing but the truth, and bask in the sun rays of another's person's happiness.

- if someone liked my lie, I could say it is a lie, and have a nice juicy argument.

- if someone liked my truth, I could say it was a lie, and enjoy the feeling of power and security.

- if someone liked my truth, I could admit it is the whole truth, and enjoy openness and mutual understanding."


And the summing up:

"So it looks like I learned to use a truth as certain means, but still has no clue why anyone would need a truth as goal and an end, in and of itself."


And that's the sadness. That last phrase: "...but still has no clue why anyone would need a truth as goal and an end, in and of itself."

No clue as to why anyone would need truth as goal and an end, in and of itself?

You who read this KNOW that truth is EXACTLY a goal and an end in and of itself.

It is probably the core of your life.

With the realisation through our very marrow of Truth ... we can go home.

But only a few at a time will ever feel like this.

Gurdjieff once said to his pupil, Fritz Peters, to look at an Oak tree and guess how many acorns it dropped in a season. A hundred? A thousand? Perhaps two thousand?

But how many go on to become oak trees themselves? Although they all may have the potential buried deep within them?

Perhaps one? Perhaps two? Maybe even five? At most! But maybe, for that particular season, NONE AT ALL.

Conditions are necessary. Soil, climate, freedom from trampling and feeding on by stray animals, protection while young and vulnerable ... many things.


In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna says to Arjuna: "Out of 10,000 people perhaps 1 will seek me. Out of 10,000 who seek perhaps 1 will know me in truth." Pretty long odds!


But without that inner yearning for Truth ... the seed, the potential, has already withered.

That's what makes me so sad about a statement like: "I can't remember if truth ever meant much in my life."

Didn't Gurdjieff also once comment to Ouspensky: "There are more dead people walking around the streets and living 'normal' lives than are buried in all the graveyards!"

StarFraction

"We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation." -- Francois De La Rochefoucauld
 
This is a great document of what goes on in the mind of a psychopath.

I've been having interesting synchronicities the last day or two. This piece you quoted Freetrinity plugs right into one. I had a Beatles song going through my head yesterday, "What Goes On?" Where Ringo sings, "It's so easy for a girl like you to lie, tell me why. (chorus) What goes on in your mind?"

Well I have heard that song thousands of times without thinking too much about it, but I did think about it yesterday in connection with psychopaths. Then I read the post by that person and I get an answer.
 
Ditto to everything said.

What was truly enlightenning for me is that, contrary to what I expected, psychopaths do indeed have a big problem with truth. And not just conceptually, but also existentially. It's not just that they don't have a problem with lie, and can lie freely. They can't see the difference between lie and truth, but they KNOW that truth is important.

And when truth does show up, it is something that's very difficult for them to deal with. It's very presence provoques a sort of a visceral reaction, and is considered threatening.
 
I liked your lie.

:)
























Does anyone recognize my lie? "There is a bear in the next room".
 
hkoehli said:
Very interesting. I can't help but think that this view on truth applies so well to such 911-Truthers as Victor Thorn and Alex Jones.
Click to expand...
I also thought of Alex Jones and Victor Thorn (and there are so many of them in the 9/11 truth movement) who move in the wrong direction. There is simply no meaning, no purity in their quest for truth apart from their self serving purposes. The end result of their egotistical "quest" is an increased acquisition of "mechanical order" (control, domination and 'NWO' outer complexity) at the expense and sacrifice of "meaningful order" (creativity). An increase in one is a decrease in the other where the later relates to the creative impulse and the former relates to the destructive impulse for control and domination.

Or as is stated in the below link it is "using God for selfish purposes"

From : http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/tibet.htm

"Well, then, what is a sin against one's soul?"

"Using spiritual things for selfish purposes. Dragging God down to earth. Trying to put oneself on a level with the Creator
Click to expand...
 
freetrinity said:
MaskedAvatar said:
I liked your lie.
Click to expand...
ehh ... I beg your pardon?
Click to expand...
- if someone liked my lie, I could say that it is nothing but the truth, and bask in the sun rays of another's person's happiness.

- if someone liked my lie, I could say it is a lie, and have a nice juicy argument.


;)
 
MaskedAvatar said:
- if someone liked my lie, I could say that it is nothing but the truth, and bask in the sun rays of another's person's happiness.
Click to expand...
This is your perspective. You may like to be called a liar. But not everybody does. I think you know it - and yet you play silly games.
MaskedAvatar said:
- if someone liked my lie, I could say it is a lie, and have a nice juicy argument.
;)
Click to expand...
This is your perspective. You may like to be called a liar. But not everybody does. I think you know it - and yet you play silly games. There is nothing funny about it. Childish games will not accepted here, on this forum.

If you have something to say, if you have something to discuss about - discuss it - and bear the consequences. Do not hide behind the mask.
 
I must deny that these things were my perspective at all.

They are in fact alternative perspectives presented in the original post, that created a way of approaching truth as something fluid that the user can use for whatever purposes they have.

I liked the "lie". I for one do not work with fluid truths. Discussion can emanate from that.

But I can't lie and say the perspectives were held by me, even when they appear fresh on page 2 and readers could attribute these perspectives to original thoughts. Unless you consider that as a temporary holder of those perspectives, any person holding them must be "playing games". Which is EXACTLY what this topic is about.

You did not like my truth.

Tolerance or intolerance of the above is YOUR perspective. Consider it.
 
In light of the above, I looked again at the uses of truth and lies by the writer cited in the original post.

I maintain my truth, but not for the purposes of "pride" in "principles" that are exclusively "mine".

It's interesting to see that that writer has "pride" as the one corollary of someone "liking" their truth that is worth mentioning. That seems a good indicator of something.

But not everything is about "psychopathy" and whatever is in the other end of that continuum.
 
It seems that they are all words these truths and lies, and it is the choice of the person who listens whether to embark on responding to any statement. This can be either pure time wasting, or part of a construction. Either way, any statement made at all whether honest or not relies on something as a response which suggests some sort of game like interaction: a give or take service to someone scenario. That is not to assume that if some one lies in a forest with no one else around to hear, it is ok, because, once again, like all lies it is even more a complete waste of time.
If someone tells a truth in a forest(with no one to hear) it is arguably equally a waste of time, and a shame, for there is no-one there to hear it!

I think teasing someone into a reaction or discussion is non constructive only because it envokes emotion which can cloud logic, and expose that which only feeds someones greed and power.
In some respects, listening to someone's rhetoric is more likely to get a worthy and productive response than carrot and sticking, as this only projects a smarmy sense of holierthanthouism.

I don't think this thread is for 'playing games' The 'verses' part in the title was about the differentiantion between two states of ment- In someoe elses perception.
I understand a different take, but it dosn't make it any better to lie.. In fact I resign from this, I feel like I am scrabbling in the dirt. good bye: I'm off back to the now department.

P E A C E S


I am still digesting the origional quote--high strangety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom