“ The problem is that truth is relative. Your truth may not be the same as mine. “ – Fish Eagle 02 May 2009
Truth is the way you see it. There is no “one” truth, but there are half-truths and blatant lies. In a perfect world, there would only be one truth. As opposed to the truth setting you free, a half- truth and a denial comforts you and a lie imprisons you. A half-truth comes in several forms, and is a deceptive statement that includes some element of the truth.
The masses prefer to be lied to or be told half-truths and live in denial rather than have to accept the truth. Recent elections have proved that point. People, in general, will accept explanations, thoughts, views and interpretations and half-truths that make them feel comfortable and at ease. Be cautioned, it is easy to fall into this trap. We all get ensnared at some time or another but it is not a good idea to set up house there.
Half-truths, by their deceptive nature are often considered to be an absolute truth. Blind faith is a stressles, blinker required existence. Information gathering in pursuit of the truth is a confusing and nerve-wracking business. You have to sift through a lot of dirt to find a diamond. The problem for me personally is the more I find out, the less I know. It is a fact that empty vessels do make a lot of senseless noise.
I have noticed a trend on many blog sites, including this one, that when persons, (generally that fella Anonymous), are confronted with an explanation or a conflicting point of view that does not conform to their way of thinking, they revert to name calling and insults as opposed to presenting the facts as they see them. I am also aware that certain people only understand this type of non-sensical response. Occasionally you have to tell some arrogant, self absorbed empty vessels to go and f*ck themselves.
This leads me to believe that the authors who pen such drivel do not have a counter argument and are so content and absorbed by their perceived noesis that they are closed minded to any other point of view. Remember, “What bullshit” used as a reply to a posting is not considered to be a constructive exchange of ideas and truths or half-truths as you may see it.
Half-truths are the greatest weapons in a politician’s (and the MSM) arsenal. All political parties have the same interest at heart and that does not include what you and I beleive as opposed to what they want us to think. The responsibilities of choice are not condusive to a comfort zone. Of all our expectations from politics, truth is not one of the redeeming features.
Each and every party is based on the presentation of half-truths. If you have ever attended a sales indoctrination course, the golden rule is do not market your products by slagging your opposition. Rather sell your product on its merits. (And if your product is of an inferior quality you have to revert to half-truths which is the stepping stone to a political career)
When it comes to politics, the golden rule flies out the door with integrity, honesty and morals on the wings of half-truths.
This is fair reason why one should judge the actions of a political party as a barometer of their policy and not based on their mostly, empty promises – good or bad. You cannot build a reputation on what you are going to do.
So if we have established a conception of what truth may be, does anybody really know the truth?
In various versions of the following tale originally from India, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.
John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!
but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!
"The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!
"The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he,
"the ElephantIs very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,"
'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he,
"the ElephantIs very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!