Truth Values

Truth Values --- as to non-trivial truths: There would seem to abide the truth of what Presently is, the truth of the Potential of what presently is (or possibly may be), the truth of what Should be, and the truth of what Shall be. There are oft thought to abide: the present truth, the desired truth, the truth of the uncertainly desired, the truly repented, the trivially known truth, the intuitively and empathetically believed truth, the reasonably hoped for truth, the unnecessary to know truth, the not wanted to know truth, and the unknowable truth. There are unknown knowns, known unknowns, known knowns, and unknown unknowns.

When one speaks of "truth" to another, such other (to the extent he is less than harmonious with the perfection of the unfolding whole) will be deluded regarding his experiences and perceptions, yet he will rationalize a fuzzy and changing interpretation of them. The "truth" of his experiences is nested in respect of the overlapping experiences of others, which, in their entirety, are nested in respect of ("condensate of") a single Field for synchronizing experiences of truth. As to all particulars which that Field should desire, no mere mortal can very well speak precise, non-trivial truth to another. Rather, we can (in empathy, enmity, or indifference) communicate to try to redirect, transform, coordinate with, amplify, or reduce the fuzzy delusions of each other, to try to make each other's delusions more harmonious with one's own interpretations (or delusions).

Each of our perspectives emanate in respect of variously organized and leveraged combinations of iterations of a same indiscernible identity, i.e., particle of conscious free will. Even so, as to experiential effects of such combinations, none of us can communicate to any other the precise quality of what it is like to be of, or to experience, our differing contexts, perspectives, and life paths. We can, with symbols for feedback, communicate aspects of, and build on, that which seems to be replicable or reliable in respect of confidences and trusts. Yet, the paint on the lily, to capture, model, and communicate the final and absolute essence of the quality of each of us, will forever elude us. Each time we seek to confine Reality with a different model, metaphor, or concept for the ultimate building block for matter, such may well lead us to a different experience, to transmogrify in respect of each new, failed capture. So long as we remain faithful to try to force final success out of any particular model, our efforts to plumb the essence will lead us to potentially never-ending notions of ever new kinds of quantum level particles (Higgs boson, anyone?).

I believe this is because "the final truth" is not in dumb particles of matter, but related to ourselves, i.e., organizations of particles within fields for the expression of our conscious will. (Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141) ) That is, we ourselves express perspectives of organizations of Something that is, in individual aspect, beyond precise empirical measure, manipulation, or proof (i.e., particles of conscious will). Of each such particle, there is no other model than itself. Each particle of conscious will is indiscernibly identical to all others, yet cannot abide apart from being nested with a common Field of consciousness. Our variety in experience and perspective is not in respect of any difference among such ultimate particles, apart from relative locus and context in respect of a common Field. That is, our variety is in respect of how such particles continue to couple and organize in respect of a single Field that sponsors and unfolds to present all, in synchronous feedback.

Our existential interactions will never be fully explicated in respect of any purely empirical notion about dumb matter. (When Hawking says, "Science will win." he is, I believe, wrong. When Hume said to commit all of metaphysics to the fire, I believe he simply failed to apprehend that nothing that is non-trivial can be modeled or communicated entirely apart from intuitions of metaphysics.) This is because conscious will is not sensibly derivative of dumb, entirely measurable particles condensed from a singular bubble out of a dumb void.

Rather, individually immeasurable particles of conscious will are continuously condensed, absorbed, recycled, and re-coupled in respect of a singular Field of consciousness. As to inanimate matter that appears to whatever extent to such perspectives of consciousness to be dumb, predictable, and measurably quantifiable, such matter is either byproduct of feedback in intercommunications among the Field of consciousness and its particles of condensate, or it is simply coordinate with their influence.

This view is not inconsistent with some of the very earliest of recorded religious traditions, as in varieties of Vedanta Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Nothing in modern logic, math, or science, or in the gilding of subsequent religious traditions, has capacity to discredit the essence of this view in terms of its moral worth, logic value, or empirical probability.  Indeed, bivalent logic is inappropriate to the consideration of religious and moral subjects.  Rather, many-sided logic is the appropriate vehicle.   Thus, the worthwhile and fundamental moral point is this:  Each of us experiences only a perspective based on differently unfolding organizations of identical particles of conscious will. Intuitively, we will tend more to be morally empathetic of the pursuits of one another to the extent we come to appreciate that fundamental, circular, self-fulfilling intuition -- whether consciously or subconsciously. Simply put, consciousness of feedback (will, intuition, and empathy) has always existed (and, intuitively, always will) -- regardless of whether or when that which we rather fuzzily call biological life was first caused to evolve.

This is an intuition that has been with us from the dawn of recorded history (and likely before). It is an intuition for a way to demarcate between that which is empirically measurable and that which is only to be appreciated within a fluxing context of feedback among the Field of consciousness and its particular perspectives, not to be scientifically manipulated in any particular sense.

It is an intuition that cannot be shown in logic to be inconsistent with experience, and it is directly open to each independent thinker. It is an intuition from which science can run, but cannot hide. Nor can such intuition be eradicated. Not even by the most expensive of dope, alcohol, or “educating” diversion. Not by worship of interloping Statism, Marxism, Paganism, Shamanism, Papism, or Imamism. And not by so-called objectivism, logical positivism, or analytic philosophy.