THE TRUTH EXPLORED  (9/14/76)

What is the “Truth”?  I don’t know.  No--……I think I might know.  Does anyone know?  Let’s try to find out just what it is.  That is, what is the nature of “Truth”?  Well . . . . . . .how do we start?  Let’s list a few possible definitions and related concepts:

Notice some key words; “perceived” – or perception; “actually”; “knowledge”.  These “weasel words”, all, somehow qualify the definition.  First, the knowledge of something implies, really, the transmission of information from the center or source of the truth to a receiver of the information.  The transportation of information, after extraction from the source and successful reception, represents the truth as perceived.  If there is little distortion of the body of knowledge on its journey to the receiver, that knowledge nearly becomes the truth.  In the limit, where distortion approaches low levels, the knowledge undoubtedly becomes identical to the truth.

The knowledge is really that information, no matter how incomplete, distorted, full of accumulated erroneous information, which reaches the receiver.

In other words, a person’s knowledge of the truth, is only what a person has perceived and stored, and may, or may not characterize the actual truth. . Sometimes the knowledge may be very close to the truth, and then other times it is so far from the actual truth of a situation that it is diametrically opposed to it.

So, the truth is difficult to know with 100% certainty and I think it appears that the second definition is the best one so far.  That is . . .  “Truth is that which actually is”.   The first and third definitions seem to be identical since “that which is perceived” is identical with “knowledge”.

But, if this is the case, there is a problem.  The problem is “time”.  If the transmission of knowledge is not instantaneous, as is apparently the case for the entire physical world, it takes a finite length of time.  This means that “what actually is” may be totally unknown for a period of time, with no apparent hope of ever receiving the knowledge before the time limit is over.  This means it is a fact that in certain cases, it is impossible to know the truth.

So in addition to knowledge deterioration, we also have knowledge lag.

An interesting question is . . .  what is the meaning and significance of truth that is impossible to perceive because of deterioration and/or lag?

A pragmatic person might say that imperceptible truth is worthless since there is no way to establish that it is the truth, through knowledge transmission.  This person is perhaps bound by the current accepted limitation of the physical universe, as we know it.  I repeat, as we know it!  But this position is inconsistent with our conclusion that knowledge only, portrays a portion of the truth after having waited for an appropriate time lag.  We must recognize that our bounds and limitation are governed by the truth and not by our knowledge.  So, when this person says that imperceptible truth is worthless, he forgets that he may very well be bounded by false limitations.

It follows then, that the truth has value even though its transmission may not be possible.  But if this is valid, it is still very frustrating.  If we don’t know something and have no inkling of the concept or hint of its existence, how can it have any effect on us?  The answer might be that that particular truth, imperceptible as it is, might really be attainable . . . . . . .   We just simply haven’t found how to transport it “in one piece” and in time to put it to use.  Also, that same imperceptible truth might exist in a more attainable sector . . . . .  but of course how do we then recognize it as the same truth that we cannot grasp, particularly when we do not even have knowledge of its existence?

It boils down to facing our so-called known limitations.  As I stated before, our bounds are self-imposed based on the sum total of knowledge we have gathered.  But in general, our knowledge is but a grain of sand on a beach of truth.  So our bounds and limitations should be dismantled and re-constructed in a position approaching consistency with the truth, not simply in line with our meager knowledge.

Well, this boundary change is not exactly easy.  How do we know where to put the limits if we don’t know what we don’t know?  This seems like an impossible task.

We perceive knowledge through the use of our senses, that is seeing, hearing, feeling (touching), smelling, and tasting . . . well, as far as we “know” anyway!  There you are . . . . . . . . another self-imposed limitation based on knowledge but in general, not on the whole truth.  I think there is one attribute that we have forgotten.  It might actually be a sensing device and a vital tool to push the limitation fence back.  This is our imagination!

Notice some things about imagination.  We can conceive of nearly anything.  In fact, I cannot feature any limitations in the realm of the imagination.  This province does not seem to be governed by the artificial bounds of the physical world.  And yet, the imagination is certainly a part of nature.