Is "Truth" bipolar?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

If their was Truth to be found out there I would expect to see it demonstrated in some way. For example, an agreed set of laws that objectify a concept of justice.

Instead, uncertainty in what is true leads two ways:

1. Towards metaphysics promoting that truth is above, behind or beyond what is apparent.

2. Towards a highly contextualised, contingent truth played out in human interaction.

Isn't truth therefore bipolar?

And not only that, but when we define something as "true," something else becomes "false," making truth more quadratic.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

And not only that, but when we define something as "true," something else becomes "false," making truth more quadratic.

Whoaaa!

GC if truth were quadratic I think we could draw truth or represent it mathematically. I'll have to think about that one.

In 2. above truth is about sensation IMO. I'm not sure of the concept of a false sensation.

Any way , challenging comments.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Whoaaa!

GC if truth were quadratic I think we could draw truth or represent it mathematically. I'll have to think about that one.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Ozzie

In 2. above truth is about sensation IMO. I'm not sure of the concept of a false sensation.

Hm...if there is no false sensation, then can there be a true one? That would make sensation neither true or false, but simply "sensed." Then, I could be wrong about there needing to be a "false" for every "true." But, our language is essentially dichotomous, isn't it? What do you think?

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Any way , challenging comments.

Indeed! This is the fun stuff we're getting into, eh? It's a challenging thread.

[PureX]

It's not so much that our language is dichotymous, it's that our brains think by comparing and contrasting sets of information. Truth appears paradoxical to us because our brains are binary.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by PureX

It's not so much that our language is dichotymous, it's that our brains think by comparing and contrasting sets of information. Truth appears paradoxical to us because our brains are binary.

Since are brains operate as binary, though, wouldn't our language as well?

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by PureX

It's not so much that our language is dichotymous, it's that our brains think by comparing and contrasting sets of information. Truth appears paradoxical to us because our brains are binary.

Truth does not appear paradoxical to most people who appear rather convinced about it.
If our brains are binary, how do we extract semantic detail from it. One answer is dualism. Another answer is currently lacking.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Truth does not appear paradoxical to most people who appear rather convinced about it.
If our brains are binary, how do we extract semantic detail from it. One answer is dualism. Another answer is currently lacking.

"Dualism" is the result of the way our brains think - by comparing and contrasting information.

And most people think facts are "truth". But facts are just facts. Their truthfulness is relative.

And semantic detail is just the result of individual perspective.

The truth is what is. And what is, is bigger than we can grasp. It's also a singular whole. When we do get a glimpse of the truth, it appears paradoxical to us because it shows up across our compartmentalizations of reality.

A simple analogy would be the two fellows chatting on the telephone as they look out their windows at a huge mountain. One fellow is looking at the mountain from the south, and the other from the north. As they describe the mountain to each other, their descriptions don't match, even though they know they are telling the truth about what they see, and that they are looking at the same mountain.

The only way these men have of describing the mountain is by using comparative terms: how high, how wide, how steep, etc., yet when they compare their comparisons, they find that they have defined two different mountains while looking at the same mountain. So which set of comparisons is "true"? They both are. And that's a paradox. Their compare/contrast method of cognating the mountain has produced a paradox. And the paradox exists because the truth of the mountain is greater than our methods of cognating the mountain can define. We simply can't cognate the entire mountain at once, yet the truth of the mountain is of the whole mountain. So the truth spans our factual comparisons, and appears to us as a paradox.

[Ozzie]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PureX

"Dualism" is the result of the way our brains think - by comparing and contrasting information.

Agreed. Nice post but not relevant to the individual case because.

And most people think facts are "truth". But facts are just facts. Their truthfulness is relative.

Truth in an individual case cannot be relative to someone else's truth unless communicated. The OP may assume communication is yet to occur.

And semantic detail is just the result of individual perspective.

How? If the answer is in comparison to someone else's then what you are talking about is difference of opinion not semantics.

The truth is what is. And what is, is bigger than we can grasp. It's also a singular whole. When we do get a glimpse of the truth, it appears paradoxical to us because it shows up across our compartmentalizations of reality.

I agree with reservations too vague to bring up here.

A simple analogy would be the two fellows chatting on the telephone as they look out their windows at a huge mountain. One fellow is looking at the mountain from the south, and the other from the north. As they describe the mountain to each other, their descriptions don't match, even though they know they are telling the truth about what they see, and that they are looking at the same mountain.

Interesting analogy similar to the blind men feeling the elephant. Again it is not relevant to the OP as intended though I am a fan of perspective.

The only way these men have of describing the mountain is by using comparative terms: how high, how wide, how steep, etc., yet when they compare their comparisons, they find that they have defined two different mountains while looking at the same mountain. So which set of comparisons is "true"? They both are. And that's a paradox. Their compare/contrast method of cognating the mountain has produced a paradox. And the paradox exists because the truth of the mountain is greater than our methods of cognating the mountain can define. We simply can't cognate the entire mountain at once, yet the truth of the mountain is of the whole mountain. So the truth spans our factual comparisons, and appears to us as a paradox.

By now you should see my point. What you write is valid for me also. But only for an attempt at a communicated truth.