What is true in the world?
Lee82
Veteran
This question came to me earlier and I’ve been thinking about it since. I was looking up some information and I found three different sources with three different versions of events purported to be the truth. In the age of the internet, misinformation is all around us, but even without the internet information is based on experience or interpretation. What, if anything, can we actually take to be true? Most, if not all, of our knowledge is based on what we are taught by others. You only need to look at the flat earth crowd who primarily state their beliefs are due to compelling evidence presented on YouTube.
I saw it written the other day that the only way to counter misinformation was to flood people’s minds with better quality and better informed information.
Add in to the mix the things we know we don’t know about life and the universe, and what are we left with, other than this single simple human life where we are born and then we die, or do we?
Comments
For whatever reasons, this question seems to be the main koan for my life.
One of the main things I think to keep in mind is that there is no such thing as being truly unbiased. There are varying and important degrees of bias, from full on fake news to a media organization's story selection, but in the end I think it comes down to differing perspectives on a great many things.
So I think to get at a sense of what is really true it is necessary to allow for and receive several perspectives on an issue rather than relying on just the ones we tend to agree with. I think this is what makes the scientific method so powerful at sorting out what is empirically true and not. Its not just the science experiments, the real factor that makes science work is the peer review, people with differing perspectives, ideas and biases test the idea to see if it works for them as well. I think that is a lesson we can use to help us sort through the mess of information.
Trying to sort through it all takes more time and inclination than most people have, so I don't really know what the answer is unfortunately. I've shared this elsewhere, but Crash course is doing a 10 part series on how to develop the skills to help us all out individually.
I should add, I don't think bias is necessarily always bad. Many stories need to be told from a particular perspective to have meaning. But I think its important to keep in mind that there are usually at least 2, if not more, sides to every story. That each can have important things to contribute to the larger picture and that they each can have their own particular blind spots.
I’ve found myself engaging with conspiracy theorists a few times recently, mostly around the chemtrails subject, and they admitted that they chose to believe the information presented on YouTube mostly because of how they felt when they watched it. Which just blew my mind, since these are quite serious things and to believe them without any form of evidence speaks of a great lack of depth in these minds.
Nothing is true in this world - including this statement ...
Meanwhile the dharma space cadets explore the inner worlds. What do we find? Spaciousness - the finale frontier.
Funny isn't it, we clutch at straw attachments and build a Buddha Man. We set fire to the man and find ourselves enflamed ...
There are many things that are true enough. Temporary rest stops on the mountain climb we have always been on top of ... In other words - nowhere to go, nothing to do. The world succeeds.
And now back to The Truth ...
True or false is only meaningful if you give power and meaning to WORDS.
STOP giving power to those words.
Here, Now.
I guess by seeking an answer to the Investigative question "Who wants to know ?" one becomes closer to the 'truth'
OK, if such a question (what is true in life) really plagues your mind, don't forget the necessary salsa: What is untrue in life?
And you couldda had a V-8!
The natural, physical World is true. Everything that we humans construct in our minds is subject to falsehood and delusion.
Not even the natural physical world is true; everything has a beginning, a middle and an end, and is a construct.
The only true thing I know in this world, is four-fold, and also known as Noble.
One natural example is the stars in the sky. I know the galaxies are there because I've seen photos and read about them, but when I look up I see a relatively small number of bright dots, nothing like the Milky Way photos you see in books and online.
Some day I want to visit a dark sky location (there's one at Dallmellington in Scotland that I'll be close to in 3 weeks time) and see it all with my own eyes, I think it would be a profound experience.
It doesn’t say reality doesn’t exist or is unknowable. It simply says we can’t easily know what it is really like because we’re trapped inside our skulls and have to make sense of it based on provably inaccurate senses.
I would not go so far as to say that. Knowledge of how the mind functions, knowledge of the true nature of appearances, knowledge of things as they actually are, can personally be gained simply by sitting cross legged on a cushion and observing. From a Buddhist perspective, that kind of knowledge is much more valuable and much more important than knowledge of stars and such.
Where did we learn that the mind functions?
Where did we learn about the True Nature of Appearances?
How did we come across the knowledge of Things as they Actually Are?
Not without prior knowledge of their essence, we can't.
I can't argue with that, but we had to discover and study Buddhism - the knowledge taught by others - before we could come to any of these conclusions.....
I wish you good luck and clear skies... and it might help to remember to bring your glasses, if any. I’ve always been fascinated by astronomy.
In the meditation hall, in the meditation hall and by meditating.
I was speaking of one's own knowledge. When the Buddha's knowledge becomes your own knowledge, which is entirely possible, it is no longer based on what others have said, but on your own personal experience. Simply because someone has guided you to it, does not mean it's not yours.
You might find this playlist helpful if this sort of thing interests you. Its a series on epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge.
I disagree. Everything you learn, everything you absorb, is second-hand. Once you develop and evolve through instruction and teachings, once you adopt the instruction, and led your life by it, then you can gain further insight and appropriate it as your own. But the preliminary insight is via that which you have learnt. From other sources.
Experience is different to knowledge.
Universal objective truth is a fiction employed to more efficiently negotiate competitive and / or cooperative relationships whilst we experience reality subjectively - in essence objective truth is whatever those subscribing to the nation unanimously agreed it is.
And yet people can't fly just because everyone believes it.
I was not referring to anything preliminary. I was referring to liberating insight, liberating knowledge, etc. No one can give to another liberating insight or knowledge. If they could, they would. Liberating knowledge must be your own, otherwise it's not liberating. Liberating knowledge is gained from your own personal experience. If it wasn't then the Buddha and teachers would just walk around giving it to everyone, then they would be liberated and there would be no need for practicing of anything. But obviously they can't do that so practicing is necessary.
Yes, it is experience that provides the knowledge that is necessary for liberation. Transcendental dependent origination illustrates this.
The liberating knowledge of things as they really are doesn't come from other people telling you stuff, it comes from concentration or the experience of "right concentration".
Liars (include self).
Opinions. Snattachments. Senseless impressions and common senses. So what is true, tried and tested: ❓
In the nature of questions are qualities. It is the nature of Buddha Being to be Unseated but grounded in Reality. Aye caramba! ?
It is all real but True? ⁉️
Everyone would have to agree the definition of 'fly' and then the results would fall somewhere between satisfied or not.
Fly ... something to do with beezlebub?
I gone wrong again ...
All well and good; but I don't think that's what the OP was asking.
This extends further into questions of proof, science and the scientific method. Objective truth is not just whatever everyone says it is, you have to be able to prove it as well.
Semantics. Whatever the definition of a human being that is capable of moving unaided through the air is, or any other such material reality of the world aside from the vocabulary or meaning we place on it. Those things can be rightly said to be objective.
The Tibetans will say that a river looks different to a human (water), than it does to a god (ambrosia), than it does to a hungry ghost (pus) or hell being (molten iron). But they never say that to some it is a bagel or a horse, IOW there is an objective reality that we place our subjective views onto, the world isn't all mind.
You don't prove it.
There is an agreed mechanism by which the conditions may be recreated to the satisfaction of a subjective observer so they may make their own assessment.
The overriding fiction aids the expediency of more efficient negotiations of competitive and / or cooperative relationships.
Perhaps the limitations on the variance of that particular set of conditions is dictated by the subscribing members.
i.e that they will go so far as their imagination will allow to agree that objectively there may be varying fluids but that the fluid state is a common denominator and only the nature of the fluid may change.
By the analogy alone, there would be nothing perverse in a river of bagels or horses... just that pus works well with ghosts and ambrosia with gods - unanimous agreement.
We don't experience the objective reality so I'm not sure I see that a subjective view could be placed onto it as such.
Not a river of bagels or horses, just a single human manufactured circular bread product or a single living, four legged, hoofed mammal that a being standing next to the "river" could either spread cream cheese on and eat or put a saddle on and ride. Rather than a body of liquid carving its way through a body of solids.
I think your view falls into what philosophers and Buddhists might call idealism or a mind only view of the world. I think Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti are helpful here with the Two Truths doctrine. Specifically that it is true to say that the world has no objectively true essential state (ultimate truth), but avoid complete subjective arbitrariness and nihilism by also saying that the relative, subjective world (conventional truth) operates in predictable, lawful ways. And further then saying that they themselves are interdependent, that saying there is an ultimate truth only makes sense as a property of the conventional and the conventional only functions because it has no true essence.
We have to be careful/grounded/skillful. Meditation and normality helps. The benefits of laity practice.
The body is fragile. The mind too. We can strengthen or improve both to a useful interdependent degree.
In a sense dharma is un-maddening. It is why we have to be aware of fluctuations. What or who can we trust?
The gone before.
From the article linked in @lobster's post, above:
Let me pre-empt the following by confirming that I do NOT expect our Gurus, lamas, teachers and elders to be enlightened in order to qualify for their positions, but I Do think that the third point - My BOLD - is an important factor when evaluating a teacher.
We have had so many discussions on Teachers and Lamas here, who have, either through third-party exposure, or through their own transparency, displayed controversial, uncharacteristic or even scandalous habits and behaviours.
While the discussions have often , in a nutshell, come to the conclusion that 'of course they're imperfect, they're 'only' human' , even through Buddhist teachings we are reminded - and deserve to be reminded - that to be born a Human, is a privilege, not an excuse.
IF the Buddha himself describes himself as someone who does what he says and says what he does, I think it's beholden upon those who purport to expand and disperse his teachings, to at least make decent effort to do likewise....
It depends on the subscribing members and what they may collectively agree upon as being the necessary compromise in seeking to negotiate interactions.
It doesn't seem to otherwise provide any more reliable a framework.
On the analogy, in a 5d exposition (say akin to an alternative evaluation of an alternative such as a god/ghost), what may be the culmination of variances that create a river in 4d may be say something akin to a solid object in 5d.
The exposition seems to depend on the evaluation and interactions of the observer.
A fiction isn't that it doesn't exist and / or it isn't defining the imponderable.
Acknowledging its employment wont allow one to walk through a wall, for example.
Mind only view - my mind, your mind, animal mind, plant mind, mineral mind, molecule mind, photon mind, string mind - all racing; which one wins?
side note : Good to see you again @Zero ..... * waves *
I guess in your nation the word fiction has a different meaning than it does in my nation.
Or allow people to fly I assume?
It seems as if you are saying that a shared language and culture help people interact more effectively. I can see that acknowledging that fairly obvious truth can help people loosen any cultural arrogance they may be holding. I think I'm mostly trying to say that doesn't mean the world is completely arbitrary, there is a fundamental material reality that our ideas and stories (Yuval Noah Harari's word, if you're not familiar with him you'll probably like his ideas) map onto and some fit better and thus work better than others for producing happiness and reducing suffering, for example the Buddhadharma as opposed to hedonism.
Tee hee.
Believe it or not some people die of thirst even when flooded with fresh dharma streaming ...
Maybe an egg timer would help?
Apologies for the typo - that should have been notion.
Ironically, I suppose that each of our understanding of a shared definition would vary around the theme ad infinitum but for practical purposes, so long as the mutual purpose / outcome is achieved, this equates to a success.
I proposed fiction as referring to an expediency, a means to an end or an empty set.
Experiencing your reality subjectively doesn't negate others' experience.
The conventional truth I suppose would be based on mutual agreement based on personal experience.
That would be a corollary.
I agree that it doesn't lead to arbitrariness in that sense (though is chaos another way of saying the sum of all arbitrariness) - we have the borders of our cognition and beyond that it's recognised as chaos - given that our experience is subjective, the notions are recognised in the subjective, framed by our experience and limited by the borders - in relation to specific conventional truths, there would be an endless list - I didn't read the OP as asking for that in relation to any specific issue.
(@vastmind Hi - Good to see you too waves)
@Zero What's the distinction between what you are talking about and propaganda, fake news or science denial like creationism or antivaxxers?
If you're saying that my opinion is akin to those things then I'm not recruiting or selling or wilfully contriving anything - it's a post on a thread that's broadly looking at a meaning of life type question - an observation.
If you're asking how the observation prevents those things then it's an observation on conditions and not directly a panacea for anything - the existence of those issues supports the observation.
I think I would say that by expressing or communicating one's own subjective reality we are, in fact, selling a point of view. The very heart of communication is the attempt to get our thoughts into the mind of another and receive their thoughts into our mind. It seems true that you aren't pushing a specific untrue agenda, but I think the point of view you are expressing absent an acknowledgment of an independent shared reality enables those sorts of views to take hold.
I think I'm saying that there is a problem with pointing out your observation without also understanding that conditions aren't completely subjective and arbitrary. That there is an underlying lawful order to the universe that subjectivity maps onto in better and worse ways.
In general I'm not a fan of the "post truth" world we are living in. I think reality is more than what we collectively say it is.
Are we living in a post-truth world? I view the post-truth movement as something that is empowered by certain people and trends, and the adherence to truth as a separate movement of people who still believe in a shared, truthful reality in the media.
It isn't just the Trumpers, who are so brazenly intentional about it, we all fall victim to it these days.
I suspect it wasn’t any different 150 years ago though, the thing that has really changed is that the rate and range by which we share information has increased. But I agree with you and the video, confirmation bias is easy to fall prey to. The techniques for verifying truth are very relevant in the Information Age.
But to call it a “post-truth world” implies a lot more than just that people have difficulty finding truth in a sea of information of dubious quality. Politicians have been exploiting the public’s naivety with respect to their truthfulness and good intentions for a long time, Trump has merely pushed it into the spotlight.
Its not my own phrase, I suppose people do disagree on how big of an issue it is though.
But yes, I do think intention matters. There is an important difference in intentionally misleading people and being unable to see past biases or unaware of information bubbles. To my mind this issue is one of the major new problems we as a species have to figure out how grapple with. We can't solve our other problems if we can't even agree to what is real or true anymore.
If its in the Oxford dictionary it must be in the public eye
But it is a phrase I have some doubts about because it seems to condone not doing the best you can to tell the truth. The very idea of anything being ‘post-truth’ seems absurd to me. You either value the truth or you side with the liars and crooks and con-men. (not meaning to imply you would do such a thing @Person)
For me, I don't think its that simple, truth is a nebulous concept. Here I'm probably sounding like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth and agreeing more with @Zero's point. If you're just talking about intentional lies I don't think you're going deep enough. Beyond lies there is rigid adherence to dogmatic beliefs and bias is everywhere and in everyone and everything. Science does its incremental and level best to root out bias, but in public opinion and media it is inescapable. Having said that there are widely varying degrees of bias, like the difference between the Wall Street Journal and Brietbart, or the New York Times and HuffPo.
If this is the first time you've heard the term post-truth I would recommend looking into it a little.
You’re right that in absolute terms there are a lot of variations on bias. But I think the motivation is crucial — as long as people agree that they want the truth, there is usually a way to get there. And on that level, there aren’t a lot of ifs and buts. Either you have an internal, deep-rooted commitment to truth and honesty, or you’re siding with a very dubious crowd of people. There is no such thing as “post” truth in motivation.
Intention, bias and deliberate fiction faction factories. Which way to go?
Then where?