the quality or state of being true."he had to accept the truth of her accusation"synonyms:veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.noun: the truth"tell me the truth"synonyms:what actually happened, the case, so;More
3. a fact or belief that is accepted as true.plural noun: truths"the emergence of scientific truths"synonyms:fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More
The truth is never an objective reality. There are no physical components within the universe verifying its existence. Truth is a human quality, that varies with culture, beliefs, and ideology. The only basis supporting any value with its existence is the community holding it up for proclamation to everyone else. It has to be a story worthy of telling to an audience willing to listen, and capable of believing. When placed within this magnifying context, the construction becomes very similar to what we identify as unverified gossip. This correlation between truth and gossip develops around the individual as they sort through the emotional context for how they receive their information. The reality is most humans are emotionally driven decision making beings. Identifying the appropriate instances for where emotions are relevant is as alien to the vast majority of people as quantum physics is to a first grader. I constantly test this theory by telling people I engage in discussions with some of the facts I’ve discovered from my reading, that I find profoundly enlightening. Their response constantly tells the story of how hearing something that creates that emotional dilemma gets denial instead of intrigue within the individual. Case in point, I informed my mom during a conversation about WWII that research discovered only about 20% of combat solders actually fired their weapons at the enemy. Her immediate response was “I don’t believe that”, to which I quantified the statement with the source of my information. She simply dismissed all of it in disbelief because it cut through her understanding of what she believed. She couldn’t offer any research supporting an opposing viewpoint, or anything tangible to suggest an alternative assumption. She simply didn’t like what I said and how it made her feel. We moved the conversation beyond that sticking point without a heated discussion about the validity of my commentary, but often times people not respecting another’s alternative viewpoint deteriorate into an emotional state of disagreement. Sound familiar? The spectrum of individual awareness is wide from the perspective of its extremes, supporting the notion of how functional Literacy is distributed throughout society. The awareness of someone proficient in this capacity is greatly enhanced comparatively to someone who’s Literacy capacity is only basic. This dichotomy supports the the wide range of any truth as perceived by a group of human beings. The size of the group supporting an accepted understanding is all too often the decisive factor for acceptance. So, if a large group of individuals with a similar capacity of awareness accept something emotionally appealing as their beliefs, it becomes convenient for others to bind to that belief without rationalization of why. This is precisely the mechanism behind all ideology. Now we have the majority with less than proficient awareness holding up the belief systems of a community, culture, society, or nation state. Here in lies the dysfunction of Democracy and what is present in today’s “Left vs. Right” confrontation.
The content of any truth must also be analyzed in comparison to the broader perspective of its context. A narrowing of perspective into a generalization is the go to methodology for that majority I continually reference. Oversimplification of a concept gives those with a lesser capacity for awareness the emotional comfort of a quasi understanding, meaning their beliefs attain some level of relevant support. “How I interpret something compared to the mainstream...” It must be the truth because everyone else believes it to be, or at least those who are present in my life. Think it’s an accident that like minded individuals connect and congregate into clusters of similar held truths? This behavior is supported by at the very least 100,000 years of social evolution, where we followed those around us to survive. Truth is extremely relative to the tribe supporting its presence. Tolerance for questioning these tribal assumptions wasn’t widely tolerated until the advent of Democracy into the social structure. This adoption of collective scrutiny opened the floodgates for human discoveries and development. Today, it’s growth and opportunity within its umbrella are what’s being challenged by the social consequences of avoiding the solution to our problems, in lieu of focusing on the symptoms. We simply lack the adequate distribution of enough individuals with the capacity to create innovative change. Our biggest impact is only pacifying the burgeoning expansion of the basic and below perspectives. There has to be an extreme sacrifice for a delayed benefit from a group, who may not accept their realization of their reality. Overcoming this emotionally charged argument, and lifting the future benefits above the immediate needs, is the most epic realization for a generation that’s never been forced into such stark introspection. Accepting the truth facing them is where the battle is being played out. Only now can we identify the importance of qualifying what the truth actually represents. Blending one truth into another and have it express the same valence to those who hold it to be self evident is the dilemma. Merging multiple truths into one requires a shit ton of compromise by everyone involved and affected. If it traverses multiple generations, then it’s complexity compounds exponentially, as well as with cultural divergence. The shift away from the dogmatic constraints of a previous realization to the rocket like explosion into the new reality will represent the ultimate challenge to our extinction. Our inability to create social change at anywhere near the same pace as technological influences will not allow our species to provide enough benefits fast enough to offset the social detriment associated with human expansion. The change I’m identifying has to happen if we are to survive as a species.
Agreement of truth and acceptance of whatever sacrifices that reflects postulates the notion we can do better than what we see around us today. Is this as good as it gets? I don’t get too riled about how this reads, nobody fucking reads it anyway. The point I’m trying to make here is that across the spectrum of all the collective interpretations of all the groups of people in the world today, no single truth reigns supreme as “The Truth”. Science probably comes the closest to reaching this nirvana, but even there lies conflicting disagreements about details. The basis for developing a unified understanding is built on the foundation of accepted principals of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. The open ended aspects of these disciplines allow for their constant updating by those exploring their domains. This openness to change offers the capacity for advancing all who follow, and creates the incentives for everyone engaged to participate in furthering the understanding of everyone. Contrast these dynamics to the sluggish dogmatic social groups we’ve referenced throughout this piece. Advancement only reaches the upper layers, and is never fully integrated throughout the populations of any specific group. The only possibility of improvement lies within the development of a higher level of acceptance through a collective shift in understanding what’s truly beneficial, and what’s emotional clinging to irrelevant comfort. The path of least resistance lies with the children. Shaping and molding their perspectives is the best opportunity. Extraction of benefits while diminishing the contamination of cultures is the challenge there. What feels right versus what promotes individual growth.