"Not all Truth is true..."

8 years 9 months ago #174554 by steamboat28

Gisteron wrote: So how are myths not fiction and not distinct from fact in this case? It's not like people keep saying that myth is "mere" fiction or "nothing other than" fiction. Just that it is fiction as opposed to non-fiction, which, of course, it is. And that is not at all "contrary" to your understanding, or is it?

I think Alan is suggesting that myths are a unique fiction in the same way that a supposition for argument's sake is distinct from, say, a novella. When one discusses a possibility, a theoretical one, we often say things like "If that were true," and "if we take x[/i] as fact...[/i]." We've invented a fiction purely to conjecture, we all know it's a fiction, and yet we're taking it (at least temporarily) as fact.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
8 years 9 months ago #174579 by
Replied by on topic "Not all Truth is true..."
My problem with the bible is why bother? You have to really step over some landmines to find any good advice and there are way way better books out there to find wisdom in. Can it be useful, sure in the same way windows 95 can be useful ,but why would anyone want to use it when there are so many better options.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 years 9 months ago - 8 years 9 months ago #174592 by Alexandre Orion
Last things first : Vesha, there is no wisdom in books. The wisdom is something that can be inspired in you about whatever you are concurrently living when you read/remember what you've read in a book. But a book cannot "contain" wisdom like Tupperware can 'contain' what remains of yesterday's lunch ... ;)

The 'wisdom' (or not) comes about for the interpreter ; it does not simply diffuse out from off a page like so-much air freshener.

Probably the only way to get around the biases of what all of our various hang-ups concerning particular words distorts about this sort of communication is to re-contextualise the whole bloody mess ...

So, just for now, lets get rid of Bible or any particular text. Let's get rid of the word myth. We don't really need true or fact - and while we're at it, nor do we need false or lie. Wrong and right get thinner that way when we get rid of the stuff we are prejudiced one way or the other to call 'wrong' and 'right'.

Lets get rid of other terms that haven't come up yet, but might. In philosophy we tend to use a variety of 'stories' that we term 'thought experiments'. They serve, but they didn't "actually happen" any more than the rest of the aforementioned crap did ... :blink:

What are we left with ? In the focus of the discussion, one might be inclined to say "precious little". Actually, we're left with a lot ! We can now start looking at everything that actually goes on and how we can otherwise talk about it and from that 'talking about' retain whatever was to be learnt. :)

Do any of you do any cooking ? Cookery books are good models for religious canon. At some time, someone put some ingredients together, did something to it, subjected it to certain conditions and the result was a particular tasty dish. The concoction that they wrote up in the cookery-book was tasty, generally. They didn't include the instructions for the ones that turned out foully revolting.

So, when we want a tasty dish (and perhaps not even knowing what precisely -- just we want something that is nourishing and tastes good), we can pull out the cookery-book, go to the market for the ingredients, and then set about recreating the combinations and conditions that result in that kind of dish. If we forget an ingredient, or get "something close" in the place of it, substitute another for one that we just don't like or in some cases are physically allergic to ... it usually turns out fine. If we don't get one or another step of the process just right, it usually turns out fine also. Sometimes, I botch the recipe completely and it STILL turns out fine ... it may not be the dish in the book, but it is still a tasty dinner. :P

Now, I've only rarely followed a recipe to the letter in 30 years of cooking. Often, when I have done exactly as the book says, I find that it tastes 'good' - I do indeed have 'food'. It is much more reliable that dinner turns out to be a culinary orgasm when I "tweak" the recipe - a little more of this, a little less of that, none at all of something else. Errors and accidents can even yield some delicious results ; it is just much harder to do it the same way the next time.

Now, if you like, we can bring back all the words we got rid of ... Is my cookery-book true ? is it false ? Well, maybe ... but I am inclined to say that it is neither. It isn't a question of true or false. It isn't right, it isn't factual. It gives me just enough suggestions that I don't go doing something just stupid like boiled bananas with horseradish sauce ... :sick: ... it talks about what one may bring about when elements and conditions and circumstances are marginally, comparatively similar. Did the original recipe process unfold exactly like it was written down ? Maybe, maybe not ... Who cares ? that was a different cook, different kitchen and we don't even know if anyone actually ate the food ... (What happened to all that food that gets prepared on cooking shows on the telly ?)

Now, with regard to the article (finally). Fundamentalism - that weird strict adherence to the Bible or the Koran or to whatever - is like unto following a cookery-book to the letter and saying that all other cookery-books are wrong. "Tweaked" recipes and most certainly botched ones are some pretty heinous "sins". And if you follow the recipes in "The Cookery-Book" and still the dish is disgusting - well, you'd better finish your plate and you must enjoy it !


I'm not sure that I made any sort of a point herein, but I did quite enjoy writing this. Would anyone like a biscuit ? I made them myself ...

Last edit: 8 years 9 months ago by Alexandre Orion.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, Proteus

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 years 9 months ago - 8 years 9 months ago #174596 by Alexandre Orion
I wonder if the idea of re-incarnating Christ through all the lives that there have ever been could be compared to someone having to taste every successful or botched recipe in all the cookery-books that have ever been printed (or just recipes scribbled on napkins) so that he would get an idea of what "food" is ?

Both Krishnamurti and Lao-Tsu (and it is mentioned in the Bible in a few places too) have alluded to looking deeply into oneself to know the experience of another/others. We all have taste buds and digestive systems and perhaps a couple of kilos en trop ...

Why are we still having such problems with the toleration (religious or otherwise) and the empathy "love thy neighbour" stuff ?

I'm not going to preach at you : I'm simply going to suggest sort of brashly that illusory individualism, passionate and rebellious in the sense of "my case different !" is getting in the way of the experience of being alive. And that's a dinner bell that we really don't want to miss (by over interpreting it). :pinch:

Last edit: 8 years 9 months ago by Alexandre Orion.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Adder, Proteus

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
8 years 9 months ago - 8 years 9 months ago #174629 by
Replied by on topic "Not all Truth is true..."
The difference is, that people are not killing millions over a cooking recipe that has been improvised.

The comparison, on the surface seems legit enough, until you think of the consequences such actions bring about, and then it starts to fall apart.

When it comes to holy books from times that were much more ignorant and superstitious, I have to say there is certainly an inherent danger in being inspired in a time where we know quite a bit more about the world, and many things that were the realm of deities are now basically understood things.

Since an analogy of a bible and cookbook came about, lets look at an analogy of a bible,(or any old holy book) and an older medical book.

No self respecting doctor would use techniques of diagnostics, or surgery from an older time in medical history. Unless it has been proven true to be better, more accurate, etc. Better to say, you would only go back so far, but we have far better technology today, MRIs, CT scans, Ultrasounds, etc as well as just trying to interpret symptoms.

An example, at one time, people thought rubbing dog excrement in the eyes of a blind person would restore there sight.

Today, such a thought is beneath even common sense.

Older ways of doing surgery are not done today, hell, at one time, they didnt even understand that you needed a sterile environment.

Now, certain surgical techniques have been improvised, and changed, and evolved, and if the percentage of survival, better recovery times, an less chance of infection are higher, you do that surgery, and you may have to do a version of an older one if there are unforseen complications. Appendectomies are a good example of this. Most are done laparoscopically, but you may have to do an open if the appendix has burst.

However, you will not go back very far into medical procedures, and they certainly are not going to go extremely far back.

Now someone may bring up maggots, yes, maggots are still used, an were used in older times, most times, not by choice, as you simply couldnt keep them out, but they served the same purpose and are used today in some cases. However, we now know why we use them as opposed to any superstitious or non esense meaning, and they are not used commonly, as we have other methods of debridement of wounds.

Medicines methods evolves, but the base philosophy stands, to heal the sick.

Medicine will move forward though with its methods and while you could argue improvisation happens, it is not necessarily as beneficial as one might think and the risk goes up quite a bit. Surgery is an example of this.

Now, what, in this world has hindered the forward growth of medicine and science more than anything else in this day and age?

Fundamentalist religions.

Keep in mind that the next time you harp on pills used to alter peoples minds etc, that at one time, they prescribed heroin and cocaine outright. Freud prescribed cocaine and did enough to put the Rolling Stones to shame.

I also disagree that there is no wisdom in books. Largely, if we are talking about books that you have to interpret then perhaps, which any book based on a very old and most likely outdated method of thinking,by people who could never have even conceived of a word that we have now, well, yeah, they would probably not even have written such a book, in fact, they wouldnt even have the same worldview. There interpretation would have been much different.

However, there are plenty of books with wisdom in them that are readily applicable to todays world. There simply not religious or philosophical ones.
Last edit: 8 years 9 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
8 years 9 months ago - 8 years 9 months ago #174630 by
Replied by on topic "Not all Truth is true..."
So in short, should I really be trying to interpret or apply a worldview from people who thought that dog excrement would cure blindness? Or something of the like?

Would you argue that putting dog excrement in someones eyes to cure blindness is true or not?

Truth, if it is truth, is true.
Last edit: 8 years 9 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZeroZeth Windwrecker