There are a couple of great comments to the Trinity of Truth made by a friend of mine. The core of the comments are that truth (both relative and absolute) needs to have evidence to support that truth and that evidence is not part of truth but more bound to truth but in a separate plane. Both truth and evidence spin around each other in a constant dance of push/pull keeping everything in balance.
However, I posit (for today) that the Trinity of Truth stands that way it is with or without evidence and that it does not need to have evidence as a secondary partner. I posit (for today) that evidence is merely a way for people to view the real/absolute truth through their perceptions.
Let me give you an example: Many years ago our perceptions were that the world is flat. That was out truth at the time. However, the real/absolute truth is that the world is round, and as more and more evidence became available our perceptions became less skewed and our perception circle started to become more aligned with the real truth. At some point enough evidence entered into the collective human consciousness that we now all accept the truth that the world is round.
The truth was always there; we just couldn’t see it due to our perceptions and the evidence cleared things up.
So, my theory is that evidence is a lever to adjust how skewed your truth line or truth circle is relative to the real absolute truth.
See you on the wire
Steven
No comments:
Post a Comment