I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:41 am

Sure, one can always speak the truth. It’s a discipline that can be developed, like any other action, and like any applied discipline, always speaking the truth requires awareness.

Certainly for spiritual growth it’s a discipline worthy of effort.

Always speaking the truth does not make one an idiot, neither does it make one a brute, though one can certainly speak truth from an idiot’s or brute’s point of view.

The alternative to speaking truth need not be lies. Skill and intent guide the selection of what is said. Truthful speech can be guided by the intent of harming, or the intent of not harming, though since a hearer is involved, intent does not guarantee results.

The alternative to speaking truth can be truthful silence. Intent is what distinguishes truthful silence from clever lies of omission.

mensa-maniac

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by mensa-maniac » Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:32 am

Cahoot

You make a lot of sense to me, and I agree with you. I know you speak truth because it is one of the 10 commandments Thou Shalt Not Lie. And if God is real and the Bible is truth, then God knows it is possible to not lie. And God's people know it's possible not to lie.

So Thank you for your input

mensa-maniac

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by mensa-maniac » Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:40 am

I love to ask people how they are doing, and when they say "I'm not to bad, thanks" and I respond with, oh your bad but not to bad. And when someone just says "I'm not bad, thanks" I respond with well then you must be good then.

I usually answer the truth of the moment when someone asks me how I am, if I feel lousy, I tell them I've had better days, right now is not one of them. And then I change the subject and talk about them.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:54 am

mensa-maniac wrote:Cahoot

You make a lot of sense to me, and I agree with you. I know you speak truth because it is one of the 10 commandments Thou Shalt Not Lie. And if God is real and the Bible is truth, then God knows it is possible to not lie. And God's people know it's possible not to lie.

So Thank you for your input
See, I see great difficulty in fullfilling any of the commandments. Love thy neighbour as thyself, the full weight of this commandment is almost unbearable. I think, if it seems like an easy task then maybe your are interpreting it in a selective manner, like: I should occasionally help out my neighbour if he/she is in a bind, maybe help them unstuck their car from the snow. But if you take the commandment as literal as possible, then the commandment boarders on humanly impossible, as do all of the other commandments. "Thou Shalt not Lie" can mean that when you are going to switch out your maxipad and the boyfriend asks what you are up to, you tell the truth. Or when your employer asks why you are running late you say "Because I stayed up too late last night reading reports on female youth gang involvement" and not "because the transportation system (e.g. cab) was running slow" or any other such excuse that doesn't make you directly responsible. It can mean telling the truth in even the most personally detrimental circumstances with no forseeable reason for doing so. Taking the commandments literally, I submit, boarders on humanly impossible.

Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Gurrb » Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:54 am

if you truly think you can be 100% truthful and be happy, i think you're in the dark. lies are what motivate us, well doubt. but i don't think one can have doubt if they are 100% truthful.

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:02 am

You’re welcome, mensa-maniac.

Howdy Animus. An adherence to truth as a spiritual discipline broadens perspective, expands vision. If one is prone to asking questions, then quite logically, truth telling will lead to the questions: Who lies? Who speaks truth?

Regarding a lady’s explanation of why she is going to the ladies’ room: Of course, refraining from engaging in a graphic and detailed exposition of toilet activities does not a liar make. There are other truths to tell, and since one cannot say everything all the time, then quite often social decorum allows a lady the latitude of skillfully selecting a truth to tell that is appropriate for an occasion. Hence, euphemisms. A lady powders her nose, which is not a lie. After a heavy meal a man walks the dog, which is not a lie. And so on. That there are other unspoken or unelaborated activities does not mean that lies are taking place.

Regarding lying to one’s employer: simply be responsible for one’s life. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the beginning of mankind, and with sufficient awareness, one could probably take the effect of being late for work and trace the chain of cause and effect back to the cradle. However, truth telling, as with all human activity, occurs within the context of relative existence, and plucking an actual (truthful) cause or effect from the chain that is detrimental to one’s relative circumstance is less a commentary on truthfulness, and more a commentary, or reflection, of an imbalance in perspective. Simply telling the boss that you overslept, that you apologize, and that you are taking positive steps to prevent future occurrences of oversleeping, is also a truthful and appropriate response, if in fact that is what you are doing. And if you are not doing that, then face up to the truth of your life, that perhaps you hate your job and should be doing something else. Perhaps working as a researcher, since it was this passion that kept you up late and was a contributing factor to oversleeping. Owning up to the consequences of a truthful life is also part of the deal, and doing so frees mental energy from keeping track of all those clever fabrications.

Disciplines take one to a state of being where the disciplines are no longer required. Thus eventually, not only does the disciplined effort of truth telling lead to effortlessly telling the truth, one becomes truth. Life becomes truth. Getting over the clinging to an ego identity of truth-teller, or liar, may seem difficult from an ego point of view. However, once that clinging, or attachment to an egocentric identity is gone, “difficult,” is no longer a concept relevant to being.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is a biblical commandment. However, from an advaita (non-dual) perspective, it is also a logical statement of fact. One cannot do other than love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. One’s actions are mirrors of self-regard. When one has the capacity to lie to one’s neighbor, one has the capacity to lie to oneself. Lying is an act of separation, it is evidence of an illusory, egoic sense of separation. Thus, no lying, i.e. truth, is a movement in the direction of dispelling illusion, which is a movement in the direction of dispelling clinging or attachment to illusion, which naturally encourages a clear apprehension of reality (no more movement, you have arrived).

You made quite an astute observation, Gurrb. "No doubt" does arise with truth telling, as does peace, confidence, assuredness. From a "commandment" oriented perspective, any one of these could be the cause of the others, though in fact awareness is a more definitive root cause, if one's particular understanding requires the relevance of a cause.

mensa-maniac

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by mensa-maniac » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:08 am

What you say Cahoot is truth about truth. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for sharing insight on truth.

Animus
Love thy neighbor like yourself just means don't do to your neighbor what you wouldn't want others to do to you.

Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Beingof1 » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:04 pm

Cahoot wrote:You’re welcome, mensa-maniac.

Howdy Animus. An adherence to truth as a spiritual discipline broadens perspective, expands vision. If one is prone to asking questions, then quite logically, truth telling will lead to the questions: Who lies? Who speaks truth?

Regarding a lady’s explanation of why she is going to the ladies’ room: Of course, refraining from engaging in a graphic and detailed exposition of toilet activities does not a liar make. There are other truths to tell, and since one cannot say everything all the time, then quite often social decorum allows a lady the latitude of skillfully selecting a truth to tell that is appropriate for an occasion. Hence, euphemisms. A lady powders her nose, which is not a lie. After a heavy meal a man walks the dog, which is not a lie. And so on. That there are other unspoken or unelaborated activities does not mean that lies are taking place.

Regarding lying to one’s employer: simply be responsible for one’s life. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the beginning of mankind, and with sufficient awareness, one could probably take the effect of being late for work and trace the chain of cause and effect back to the cradle. However, truth telling, as with all human activity, occurs within the context of relative existence, and plucking an actual (truthful) cause or effect from the chain that is detrimental to one’s relative circumstance is less a commentary on truthfulness, and more a commentary, or reflection, of an imbalance in perspective. Simply telling the boss that you overslept, that you apologize, and that you are taking positive steps to prevent future occurrences of oversleeping, is also a truthful and appropriate response, if in fact that is what you are doing. And if you are not doing that, then face up to the truth of your life, that perhaps you hate your job and should be doing something else. Perhaps working as a researcher, since it was this passion that kept you up late and was a contributing factor to oversleeping. Owning up to the consequences of a truthful life is also part of the deal, and doing so frees mental energy from keeping track of all those clever fabrications.

Disciplines take one to a state of being where the disciplines are no longer required. Thus eventually, not only does the disciplined effort of truth telling lead to effortlessly telling the truth, one becomes truth. Life becomes truth. Getting over the clinging to an ego identity of truth-teller, or liar, may seem difficult from an ego point of view. However, once that clinging, or attachment to an egocentric identity is gone, “difficult,” is no longer a concept relevant to being.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is a biblical commandment. However, from an advaita (non-dual) perspective, it is also a logical statement of fact. One cannot do other than love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. One’s actions are mirrors of self-regard. When one has the capacity to lie to one’s neighbor, one has the capacity to lie to oneself. Lying is an act of separation, it is evidence of an illusory, egoic sense of separation. Thus, no lying, i.e. truth, is a movement in the direction of dispelling illusion, which is a movement in the direction of dispelling clinging or attachment to illusion, which naturally encourages a clear apprehension of reality (no more movement, you have arrived).

You made quite an astute observation, Gurrb. "No doubt" does arise with truth telling, as does peace, confidence, assuredness. From a "commandment" oriented perspective, any one of these could be the cause of the others, though in fact awareness is a more definitive root cause, if one's particular understanding requires the relevance of a cause.
What a powerful statement of reality.

This was moving and I am grateful to have read your words.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:44 am

Cahoot wrote:You’re welcome, mensa-maniac.

Howdy Animus. An adherence to truth as a spiritual discipline broadens perspective, expands vision. If one is prone to asking questions, then quite logically, truth telling will lead to the questions: Who lies? Who speaks truth?

Regarding a lady’s explanation of why she is going to the ladies’ room: Of course, refraining from engaging in a graphic and detailed exposition of toilet activities does not a liar make. There are other truths to tell, and since one cannot say everything all the time, then quite often social decorum allows a lady the latitude of skillfully selecting a truth to tell that is appropriate for an occasion. Hence, euphemisms. A lady powders her nose, which is not a lie. After a heavy meal a man walks the dog, which is not a lie. And so on. That there are other unspoken or unelaborated activities does not mean that lies are taking place.
It seems like you are fudging terms here. Truth is that which is real, that which actually is the case. There are no "truths relative to a situation", if a woman is going to the bathroom to swap out her pad in reality, then the only truthful statement available for her selection is "I am going to the bathroom to swap out my pad". If she makes any other statement then it is a false statement. Only if she is going to literally powder her nose would it be a truthful statement "I am going to powder my nose". If there are unspoken activities taking place it may not be a lie per se to exclude them, but as lies, it falls under the category of deception. My main point was that we habitually deceive each other and to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is a very difficult thing indeed.
Regarding lying to one’s employer: simply be responsible for one’s life. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the beginning of mankind, and with sufficient awareness, one could probably take the effect of being late for work and trace the chain of cause and effect back to the cradle. However, truth telling, as with all human activity, occurs within the context of relative existence, and plucking an actual (truthful) cause or effect from the chain that is detrimental to one’s relative circumstance is less a commentary on truthfulness, and more a commentary, or reflection, of an imbalance in perspective. Simply telling the boss that you overslept, that you apologize, and that you are taking positive steps to prevent future occurrences of oversleeping, is also a truthful and appropriate response, if in fact that is what you are doing. And if you are not doing that, then face up to the truth of your life, that perhaps you hate your job and should be doing something else. Perhaps working as a researcher, since it was this passion that kept you up late and was a contributing factor to oversleeping. Owning up to the consequences of a truthful life is also part of the deal, and doing so frees mental energy from keeping track of all those clever fabrications.
I actually don't fear judgement as much. I'm truthful with my employer and pretty much everyone else. I've been taking this Lanzoprazole to reduce stomach acid, but one of the side-effects is diahrrhea. The other night I was busy and couldn't use the wahsroom immediately. Later on, when I had the opportunity I ran to the bathroom to urinate and felt like I was going to pee my pants if I didn't act quickly, unfortunately in the process I was unable to retain my feces, so I shit my pants. This is 100% truthful story, it just happened last week. This is a rather embarassing story, but is never-the-less something that happened. Egomaniacs would try very hard to forget this ever happened to them and probably would die never telling a soul it happened to them. But this is all idiocy, shit happens, I mean literally. The anal sphincter can have difficulty retaining feces under the circumstances. What's to be afraid of? Other people's egos and the chance that such a fact might taint one's social image. For me to retain this information out of self-preservation is just that ego, fear of judgement, fear of being out in the light. Fear of being seen for who we really are and fear of facing ourselves. I happen to be deteriorating in health rather quickly, I've encountered myriad chronic health problems, particularly relating to my digestive tract in recent years. I'm only 28 but past decisions I've made have led to this consequence in conjunction with a congenital factors inherited from my mother. Chances are I'll die within the next decade or two. Point is, things are what they are and to be truthful is to accept the way things are and not work to suppress the truth. If someone holds this story against me, well that's something for them to work out.
Disciplines take one to a state of being where the disciplines are no longer required. Thus eventually, not only does the disciplined effort of truth telling lead to effortlessly telling the truth, one becomes truth. Life becomes truth. Getting over the clinging to an ego identity of truth-teller, or liar, may seem difficult from an ego point of view. However, once that clinging, or attachment to an egocentric identity is gone, “difficult,” is no longer a concept relevant to being.

Loving your neighbor as yourself is a biblical commandment. However, from an advaita (non-dual) perspective, it is also a logical statement of fact. One cannot do other than love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. One’s actions are mirrors of self-regard. When one has the capacity to lie to one’s neighbor, one has the capacity to lie to oneself. Lying is an act of separation, it is evidence of an illusory, egoic sense of separation. Thus, no lying, i.e. truth, is a movement in the direction of dispelling illusion, which is a movement in the direction of dispelling clinging or attachment to illusion, which naturally encourages a clear apprehension of reality (no more movement, you have arrived).

You made quite an astute observation, Gurrb. "No doubt" does arise with truth telling, as does peace, confidence, assuredness. From a "commandment" oriented perspective, any one of these could be the cause of the others, though in fact awareness is a more definitive root cause, if one's particular understanding requires the relevance of a cause.

I hear what you are saying, but I think you've only taken it as far as your comfort zone will allow you to, and then you've made up excuses for suppressing or hiding truth under various circumstances, circumstances pertaining to ego and self-preservation, with your philosophy favouring egotism.

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:14 pm

Howdy Animus.

I understand your point.

I don’t dispute your assertion that truth is what is real.

However, the telling of the truth is relative to a situation, and circumstance defines the appropriateness of the telling.

The audience, or hearer, is a condition of circumstance. Telling a truth in terms that a particular audience can hear the truth that you are telling defines the appropriateness of the telling. Determining a particular audience’s capacity for hearing determines the manner of the telling.

For example, when a butcher tucks his small child into bed at night, with the child’s favorite soft cozy stuffed animal friend snuggled in under the covers, and he reads stories to the child about the little bunnies and their mommies, or the little bears and their mommies and their animal friends, the child may ask, “What did you do today, Daddy?”

Since this butcher works in a slaughter-house, he has recent and vivid memories of graphic killings, the visions and the sounds and the smells of death at his disposal, to communicate the truth of what he did during his day.

However, appropriate to the conditions of the circumstance, he is likely to spare his little one the graphic details while still communicating the truth, so that his child will hear the truth. And the truth that he communicates will be, he went out into the world and worked in order to keep his family safe and comfortable. He may even tell his child that he went out into the world and worked so that he could buy mommy some powder for her nose. (Defining power as something mommy likes to use in order to make herself look pretty, rather than as a truth-telling to the child that mommy is a crack whore snorting powdered cocaine up her nose, which would be inappropriate for the circumstance, if that is in fact a facet of the whole truth.)

The butcher’s gauge of appropriateness is his intent, which in this case is to not harm his child.

In other cases, such as when conversing with adults while dining in a restaurant, this gauge in determining the appropriateness of telling also applies.

However, there is more.

Appropriateness can transcend the limitations of the butcher's knowledge.

Between adults, in the process of the telling and the hearing, truths unanticipated to either the intent of the hearing or the telling can be revealed, whether the intent of the hearing or the telling is to harm, to not harm, to be harmed, or to not be harmed.

This is the synergy of relationship, to experience the compassion of humanity, and can be a pleasure.

Thus, as I infer from what you write, telling the whole truth is a gesture of respecting the humanity and sensitivity of a particular audience. Telling the whole truth is a gesture of trust, of baring one’s vulnerabilities and trusting in the other’s capacity to in turn determine and exercise sensitivity, and appropriateness.

And as I infer from what you write, not only does this telling exhibit courage and the compassion of existence by the teller, it confers upon the hearer the explicit opportunity to also step into a shared moment of courage and compassion.

Humanity reveals, truth is the method, and if they have the capacity, both teller and hearer share in a communion of communication.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:47 pm

Cahoot wrote:Howdy Animus.

I understand your point.

I don’t dispute your assertion that truth is what is real.

However, the telling of the truth is relative to a situation, and circumstance defines the appropriateness of the telling.

The audience, or hearer, is a condition of circumstance. Telling a truth in terms that a particular audience can hear the truth that you are telling defines the appropriateness of the telling. Determining a particular audience’s capacity for hearing determines the manner of the telling.

For example, when a butcher tucks his small child into bed at night, with the child’s favorite soft cozy stuffed animal friend snuggled in under the covers, and he reads stories to the child about the little bunnies and their mommies, or the little bears and their mommies and their animal friends, the child may ask, “What did you do today, Daddy?”

Since this butcher works in a slaughter-house, he has recent and vivid memories of graphic killings, the visions and the sounds and the smells of death at his disposal, to communicate the truth of what he did during his day.

However, appropriate to the conditions of the circumstance, he is likely to spare his little one the graphic details while still communicating the truth, so that his child will hear the truth. And the truth that he communicates will be, he went out into the world and worked in order to keep his family safe and comfortable. He may even tell his child that he went out into the world and worked so that he could buy mommy some powder for her nose. (Defining power as something mommy likes to use in order to make herself look pretty, rather than as a truth-telling to the child that mommy is a crack whore snorting powdered cocaine up her nose, which would be inappropriate for the circumstance, if that is in fact a facet of the whole truth.)

The butcher’s gauge of appropriateness is his intent, which in this case is to not harm his child.

In other cases, such as when conversing with adults while dining in a restaurant, this gauge in determining the appropriateness of telling also applies.

However, there is more.

Appropriateness can transcend the limitations of the butcher's knowledge.

Between adults, in the process of the telling and the hearing, truths unanticipated to either the intent of the hearing or the telling can be revealed, whether the intent of the hearing or the telling is to harm, to not harm, to be harmed, or to not be harmed.

This is the synergy of relationship, to experience the compassion of humanity, and can be a pleasure.

Thus, as I infer from what you write, telling the whole truth is a gesture of respecting the humanity and sensitivity of a particular audience. Telling the whole truth is a gesture of trust, of baring one’s vulnerabilities and trusting in the other’s capacity to in turn determine and exercise sensitivity, and appropriateness.

And as I infer from what you write, not only does this telling exhibit courage and the compassion of existence by the teller, it confers upon the hearer the explicit opportunity to also step into a shared moment of courage and compassion.

Humanity reveals, truth is the method, and if they have the capacity, both teller and hearer share in a communion of communication.
Precisely, rather than hiding behind veils of deciet and egotism we can step out into the light and proclaim the truth as it is to each other. We can all stand in the truth together, but not if we habitually hide it. In the examples you gave I would put to you that the man who slaughters animals for a living and has difficulty telling this to his child should wonder if his difficulty telling his child is not an indication he should find a different occupation. If he can infer its disturbing nature vicariously through his child's eyes, its probably an indication that he's in denial of its disturbing nature. It is so often the case the the child's unfiltered perception is more on target than the learned acceptance of the adult. Personally, I eat meat , I consume the product of slaughtered meat and the labor of men and women in the occupation, so I can't have too much of a political agenda and yet still say that its gotta be disturbing to slaughter animals for a living. People habituate to their occupations, doing it mostly for money and not a passion or the disturbing nature is not the target of their passion. I find hospital emergency rooms disturbing but the staff are always pretty relaxed and ignorant of the brutality that surrounds them. Anyway, I'd feel much better telling my child I work in an ER than a slaughterhouse.

As regards the man who tells has difficulty telling his child that their mom snorts cocaine. It should be an indication that mom shouldn't be snorting cocaine and/or dad shouldn't be with mom and putting the child in contact with a cracked out individual. I mean, these are okay arguments for the average joe, but for us philosophicalists we need something that defines the line better. I'm having difficulty in that region.

There are times when it may not be wise to speak of anything, in which case to be truthful might be to say nothing. What I mean, and the reason for my brutal example, is that when speaking it is wise to speak truhfully and not make a mockery of the truth. Problems will arise if a person attempts to distort the truth for the sake of self-preservation or the preservation of a social dynamic. Consider a situation where an individual makes a slight distortion of the turh and then is caught by the listener to be distorting the truth. The relationship between teller and listener is now tainted by the incident. I think it important to stand in the light always and not waver in and out of ignorance as a means of securing comfort for one's self or others. When people confide matters in me I often speak of them publically, the only fact which I wouldn't reveal would be their name or other incriminating evidence. This isn't so much to protect them from valid criticism, its only to protect them from invalid criticism and only to the extent that they are incapable of handling it. But as a matter of tendency I don't reveal such information. This has bothered some who have confided in me and they may have regrets about it. However, nothing I've said has lead to any real physical or social harm to an individual, only extreme discomfort with the truth of matters. What happens is when I retell their story in public and they become aware that I have done so, they feel an impending doom arising from the truth of them being revealed publically, even though it reasonably hasn't because no one knows who I'm speaking of or if I'm just making it all up to prove a point. The key point I"m making here is that the psychological states between knowing the truth about one's self and having to face that in public is a completely different thing all together, even if its only the threat of the latter. In that vain, to become comfortable with being in supreme light, which I will define as something equivelant of the entire universe knowing what you've done and what you are, whether or not that is a reality, conceptually speaking that would be the ultimate light. To put one's self out truthfully in front of billions of onlookers should pale in relative comparison to the supreme light. Then the supreme light conceptually speaking can serve as a relative basis for measuring our comfort level within the truth generally. To be known by a few close friends is different than to not be known at all, and is yet again different from being known by one's community or to be world-renown for what you've done. Even to make a website, blog or video is to some extent placing one's self in the judgement of the collective human conscience. It can be quite discomforting and I think it important to be comfortable with in those situations as a consequence of being true and not a delusion.

I guess I put more emphasis on being truthful as a matter of principle and not personal gain. Though I would argue that its very difficult to foresee consequences and being truthful is a pretty sure fire way of not being a liar or at least being untrustworthy or deceitful. Distortion of truth indicates to me a lack of fortitude and unreliability. It seems to me that others would hold me liable for distorting the truth and compromising their trust in me as being a purveyor of truth. What good would I be to anyone if all my statements were biased in favor of myself or my collective identity? I suppose I'd be helpful to some, but to others I'd be a jackass. I suppose by telling the truth always I might end up being seen as a jackass by everyone, but I won't be betraying the truth. I guess if your argument is from personal application than there is much to be gained from lying. But all that seems rather ego-centric to me and I'm not sure that it is itself very insightful. I'm inclined to approach things first from an allocentric perspective.

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:28 pm

Thank you for sharing your intelligent insights, Animus.

I’ll repeat though, one cannot say everything all the time.

However, one can still speak the truth.

Skillful selection of which truth to tell, appropriate to the circumstance of the hearer’s capacity, whether that selection be guided by personalized intent or universal compassion, does not constitute lying.

A sage once advised that words first pass through three doors before being spoken.

Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?

If the words can pass through all three doors, then speak them.

I think this advice is based on intelligent discretion and skill (wisdom), rather than the suppression or the avoidance of truth.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:26 am

Cahoot wrote:Thank you for sharing your intelligent insights, Animus.

I’ll repeat though, one cannot say everything all the time.

However, one can still speak the truth.

Skillful selection of which truth to tell, appropriate to the circumstance of the hearer’s capacity, whether that selection be guided by personalized intent or universal compassion, does not constitute lying.

A sage once advised that words first pass through three doors before being spoken.

Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?

If the words can pass through all three doors, then speak them.

I think this advice is based on intelligent discretion and skill (wisdom), rather than the suppression or the avoidance of truth.
Right, I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think that excuse can be used quite liberally too. I speak more of the tendency of humans to slightly modify the truth in order to make themselves appear better to outsiders, putting on a false front to earn other's respect. Ultimately whatever respect is earned, is earned on a faulty premise and is fundamentally delusional. I catch myself out on these distortions a lot. More-so in the past, but still I have to keep an eye on it.

I'm surprised, though maybe I shouldn't be, that I will discuss an experience. For example I might be doing some skilled work alone and my thoughts could be on bioinformatics or neural networks or something, but then someone else enters the scene and begins observing my work. I can feel the social pressure, I can identity thought patterns which are concerned with performing for the observer. Yet, when I relate this to others it seems as if this is totally alien to them, or perhaps they are simply unaware of the content of their own mind.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:37 am

LOL, You know, I hated this movie when it came out, I thought it was garbage, but this clip is very much along the lines of what I've been saying in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ-pM9qI ... re=related

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:54 am

Animus wrote:

In the examples you gave I would put to you that the man who slaughters animals for a living and has difficulty telling this to his child should wonder if his difficulty telling his child is not an indication he should find a different occupation. If he can infer its disturbing nature vicariously through his child's eyes, its probably an indication that he's in denial of its disturbing nature. It is so often the case the the child's unfiltered perception is more on target than the learned acceptance of the adult. Personally, I eat meat , I consume the product of slaughtered meat and the labor of men and women in the occupation, so I can't have too much of a political agenda and yet still say that its gotta be disturbing to slaughter animals for a living. People habituate to their occupations, doing it mostly for money and not a passion or the disturbing nature is not the target of their passion. I find hospital emergency rooms disturbing but the staff are always pretty relaxed and ignorant of the brutality that surrounds them. Anyway, I'd feel much better telling my child I work in an ER than a slaughterhouse.
Hello Animus.

I haven’t seen that movie. Didn’t know it existed.

I excerpted a bit of what you wrote to flesh out the story of the butcher, so to speak. If I have altered the meaning of what you have written by taking out this portion that directly references the butcher, apologies in advance. My intent is not to refute or invalidate the essence of what you have written.

This particular butcher has no difficulty in talking to his child, or telling his child anything. Neither is he in denial of anything to do with his life, nor does he have any desire to change occupations.


Difficulty talking to his child, or being in denial, or wanting to change occupations are characteristics you applied to the butcher, but they are not real. They are just a play of your imagination being projected onto this butcher.

If I wanted to play cute I could say you are lying about my butcher, but of course I won't do that because I trust that lying is not your intent. Obviously, you are merely claiming the prerogative of embellishing my example in order to make the point you wish to make.

There may be butchers who are these things you wrote, but not this butcher. Not my butcher.

He is enlightened.

As such, he is entirely cognizant of memories, however he does not cling to memories.

His body, and his mind, are attentive to the present moment, which in the situation described by the example, is with his son, in the safety and security of the child’s room. He is reading aloud, stories of the little forest animals, the adventures of the animals, and the families of the animals.

He is not there with his son in body, while his mind is off elsewhere, occupied with the past. For in truth, the past is gone. It does not exist. All that does exist is the present moment with his son.

So when his son asks the butcher what he did during the day, which has passed, the butcher answers with full awareness and attentiveness to his child’s capacity for comprehension. His child is very young, which is why they are reading these bedtime stories together.

He tells his son the truth that his child can comprehend, in terms that the child can comprehend, and the truth is relevant to the conditions of present moment. He tells his child that he went out into the world and worked in order to keep his family safe and comfortable.

Yes, the truth is real. However, what is real?

For the butcher, it is the present moment with his son. Thus, what he tells the son about what he did during the day is appropriate to the conditions of the present moment, and is relevant to the present moment.

And since he cannot say everything all at once, compassion guides his skillful selection of what he does say.

The past? It is nothing but ephemeral memories, based on the vagaries of whatever appeared within awareness.

The future? Only projections based on ephemeral memories and inferences which exist as thought. More mind stuff.

And since the butcher is enlightened, he is not clinging to that mind stuff.

He is engaged with Reality, which is the present, with his son.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:27 pm

Cahoot wrote:
Animus wrote:

In the examples you gave I would put to you that the man who slaughters animals for a living and has difficulty telling this to his child should wonder if his difficulty telling his child is not an indication he should find a different occupation. If he can infer its disturbing nature vicariously through his child's eyes, its probably an indication that he's in denial of its disturbing nature. It is so often the case the the child's unfiltered perception is more on target than the learned acceptance of the adult. Personally, I eat meat , I consume the product of slaughtered meat and the labor of men and women in the occupation, so I can't have too much of a political agenda and yet still say that its gotta be disturbing to slaughter animals for a living. People habituate to their occupations, doing it mostly for money and not a passion or the disturbing nature is not the target of their passion. I find hospital emergency rooms disturbing but the staff are always pretty relaxed and ignorant of the brutality that surrounds them. Anyway, I'd feel much better telling my child I work in an ER than a slaughterhouse.
Hello Animus.

I haven’t seen that movie. Didn’t know it existed.

I excerpted a bit of what you wrote to flesh out the story of the butcher, so to speak. If I have altered the meaning of what you have written by taking out this portion that directly references the butcher, apologies in advance. My intent is not to refute or invalidate the essence of what you have written.

This particular butcher has no difficulty in talking to his child, or telling his child anything. Neither is he in denial of anything to do with his life, nor does he have any desire to change occupations.


Difficulty talking to his child, or being in denial, or wanting to change occupations are characteristics you applied to the butcher, but they are not real. They are just a play of your imagination being projected onto this butcher.

If I wanted to play cute I could say you are lying about my butcher, but of course I won't do that because I trust that lying is not your intent. Obviously, you are merely claiming the prerogative of embellishing my example in order to make the point you wish to make.

There may be butchers who are these things you wrote, but not this butcher. Not my butcher.

He is enlightened.

As such, he is entirely cognizant of memories, however he does not cling to memories.

His body, and his mind, are attentive to the present moment, which in the situation described by the example, is with his son, in the safety and security of the child’s room. He is reading aloud, stories of the little forest animals, the adventures of the animals, and the families of the animals.

He is not there with his son in body, while his mind is off elsewhere, occupied with the past. For in truth, the past is gone. It does not exist. All that does exist is the present moment with his son.

So when his son asks the butcher what he did during the day, which has passed, the butcher answers with full awareness and attentiveness to his child’s capacity for comprehension. His child is very young, which is why they are reading these bedtime stories together.

He tells his son the truth that his child can comprehend, in terms that the child can comprehend, and the truth is relevant to the conditions of present moment. He tells his child that he went out into the world and worked in order to keep his family safe and comfortable.

Yes, the truth is real. However, what is real?

For the butcher, it is the present moment with his son. Thus, what he tells the son about what he did during the day is appropriate to the conditions of the present moment, and is relevant to the present moment.

And since he cannot say everything all at once, compassion guides his skillful selection of what he does say.

The past? It is nothing but ephemeral memories, based on the vagaries of whatever appeared within awareness.

The future? Only projections based on ephemeral memories and inferences which exist as thought. More mind stuff.

And since the butcher is enlightened, he is not clinging to that mind stuff.

He is engaged with Reality, which is the present, with his son.

Personally, I think this is an unfair example. It presupposes that there could even be an enlightened butcher. If the person's occupation was a hitman the morality of it might be clearer. It is very difficult for us to say what occupation an enlightened individual would have, somehow I don't think it would be a butcher.

There may be truth to not telling a child certain things, but I'm saying that they are indications of underlying problems. You may not tell a child that mommy and daddy are having a big fight, but mommy and daddy having a big fight isn't exactly the behavior of enlightened individuals. Perhaps if you can think of another example of a situation that would morally disturb a child and at the same time be the behavior of a fully enlightened sage then perhaps I'll be able to see your point clearly.

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:44 pm

Oh, it’s a good example all right.

Do you think you would recognize a Buddha?

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:18 am

Cahoot wrote:Oh, it’s a good example all right.

Do you think you would recognize a Buddha?
I thought you might extend this discussion as far as defining enlightenment. of course we'd have to, then we'd have to debate the morality of butchering animals from the definition of enlightenment. That all seems fairly futile to me, when we could use a better example. The trick is, you are going to have trouble finding such an example that doesn't straddle the definition of enlightenment and simultaneously is morally repulsive to a child.

User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by guest_of_logic » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:49 am

Animus wrote:The trick is, you are going to have trouble finding such an example that doesn't straddle the definition of enlightenment and simultaneously is morally repulsive to a child.
Why would it have to be morally repulsive - couldn't it just be very ugly for a child's mind to contemplate? How about if that day the father, who had a sprained ankle so that he couldn't run, had been attacked by a knife-wielding maniac, who screamed obscenities and his utter contempt for all life and all of the foul tortures he wanted to perform, and who could only be stopped by disarming him of his knife and stabbing him to death when he produced another knife (a switch-blade, from his sock)?

Do you, Animus, think that such a situation might occur to a fully enlightened person? If so, would you advocate that the father as such a fully enlightened person relate that story to his young child in all of its disturbing details when asked by that child what he did that day?

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:42 pm

guest_of_logic wrote:
Animus wrote:The trick is, you are going to have trouble finding such an example that doesn't straddle the definition of enlightenment and simultaneously is morally repulsive to a child.
Why would it have to be morally repulsive - couldn't it just be very ugly for a child's mind to contemplate? How about if that day the father, who had a sprained ankle so that he couldn't run, had been attacked by a knife-wielding maniac, who screamed obscenities and his utter contempt for all life and all of the foul tortures he wanted to perform, and who could only be stopped by disarming him of his knife and stabbing him to death when he produced another knife (a switch-blade, from his sock)?

Do you, Animus, think that such a situation might occur to a fully enlightened person? If so, would you advocate that the father as such a fully enlightened person relate that story to his young child in all of its disturbing details when asked by that child what he did that day?
The individual in your example seem particularly attached to their own existence, to the extent they are willing to murder another over it. To me that doesn't sound enlightened, I want to avoid sounding like a Christian, but say that a truly enlightened being would probably surrender to the attacker. So the situation would not occur, however, supposing it did for the sake of satisfying your argument. There is nothing preventing the father from stating that he was attacked to his child. This information is not going to significantly impact the child. There is no evidence that such knowledge would cause any problems. The person does not need to say that they were fishing, or to embellish all the details of the story to the child, however if the story was being related to the police every detail of the incident should be recounted. People do not just lie to their children, they lie to each other and to those they really shouldn't. You may not realize this but even a child can detect lies and dishonesty, and although children can be forgiving, they may not understand any justification for lying when they are expected to tell the truth. Consequently the lying can cause a loss of trust with the child and its parent, and this I assure you will cause much more harm to the child than a full exaggerated account of the attack.

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:04 am

When the son asks the father about his day, the intent of the father is to communicate the truth to his son.

The truth that the son is requesting is the essence of the phenomena called the butcher’s day.

Does the essence lie in the dissection?

In retrospect any phenomena can be mentally dissected into any number of finite constituent elements, the precise number depending on conditions such as the capacity of the dissector, the importance of the task in relation to the totality of life, the hierarchy of relative importance assigned to each element, and so on.

In communicating the past, the butcher needs to communicate the essence of the past, in a way his child can understand.

The butcher knows that an animal can be dissected all the way down to the subatomic realm, and the essence of the animal will not be found in any of the dissected parts. (Though paradoxically, the essence of each constituent part is also the essence of the whole, or totality.)

He knows that, figuratively speaking, the same applies to his day.

The butcher has the capacity to dissect the history of his day into fragments and recount each of these fragments for his son, without offering the essence, encouraging the child to conclude the essence for himself.

When the child is older, the butcher very well may do this as a teaching tool, for when he is older the child will have a more developed capacity for reasoning, and will have a broader base of memories in order to compare and contrast newly encountered phenomena, and he will have the butcher as an enlightened teacher to evaluate the conclusions.

And, being able to derive the essence of another’s experience from an accounting will be a useful skill for his son to have.

However, now he is a young child, so the father provides conclusions, or the essence of his day rather than the constituent elements of his day, in a manner in which his child can comprehend.

Should the butcher begin itemizing the component elements of his day in order to lead up to a conclusion that is the essence, or truth of his day, he knows that his son may seize upon the most graphic of the mental images presented by the father and, because of his childlike capacity, in turn translate this into the essence of the day.

Also, hearing these graphic mental images in the context of the present could well obscure the essence of the present.

By using a broad definition of lying, obscuring the essence of the present could even be called lying. And my enlightened butcher ... our butcher ... always tells the truth.

So, the father communicates the essence relevant to the conditions already described ... child’s capacity, the environment, and so on.

And, the father’s palette of communication is not restricted to word abstractions. In fact, much of the time he communicates the essence with silence, which is effortless for the enlightened butcher since his being radiates truth, and because his son can often hear that communication.

mensa-maniac

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by mensa-maniac » Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:04 am

Wow, Cahoot, you are amazing, I love it!

I love to read parables.

Thanks for sharing!

User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Cahoot » Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:14 am

Why thank you. Sincerely! It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to offer my simple contributions to this marvelous forum, and to this important topic you introduced.

Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Gurrb » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:27 am

are predictions lies?

they are potentially the truth, or potentially a lie. i guess they'd be neutral, but something is either true or it isn't.

Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: I'm no Liar...Are you?

Post by Animus » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:57 am

Cahoot wrote:When the son asks the father about his day, the intent of the father is to communicate the truth to his son.

The truth that the son is requesting is the essence of the phenomena called the butcher’s day.

Does the essence lie in the dissection?

In retrospect any phenomena can be mentally dissected into any number of finite constituent elements, the precise number depending on conditions such as the capacity of the dissector, the importance of the task in relation to the totality of life, the hierarchy of relative importance assigned to each element, and so on.

In communicating the past, the butcher needs to communicate the essence of the past, in a way his child can understand.

The butcher knows that an animal can be dissected all the way down to the subatomic realm, and the essence of the animal will not be found in any of the dissected parts. (Though paradoxically, the essence of each constituent part is also the essence of the whole, or totality.)

He knows that, figuratively speaking, the same applies to his day.

The butcher has the capacity to dissect the history of his day into fragments and recount each of these fragments for his son, without offering the essence, encouraging the child to conclude the essence for himself.

When the child is older, the butcher very well may do this as a teaching tool, for when he is older the child will have a more developed capacity for reasoning, and will have a broader base of memories in order to compare and contrast newly encountered phenomena, and he will have the butcher as an enlightened teacher to evaluate the conclusions.

And, being able to derive the essence of another’s experience from an accounting will be a useful skill for his son to have.

However, now he is a young child, so the father provides conclusions, or the essence of his day rather than the constituent elements of his day, in a manner in which his child can comprehend.

Should the butcher begin itemizing the component elements of his day in order to lead up to a conclusion that is the essence, or truth of his day, he knows that his son may seize upon the most graphic of the mental images presented by the father and, because of his childlike capacity, in turn translate this into the essence of the day.

Also, hearing these graphic mental images in the context of the present could well obscure the essence of the present.

By using a broad definition of lying, obscuring the essence of the present could even be called lying. And my enlightened butcher ... our butcher ... always tells the truth.

So, the father communicates the essence relevant to the conditions already described ... child’s capacity, the environment, and so on.

And, the father’s palette of communication is not restricted to word abstractions. In fact, much of the time he communicates the essence with silence, which is effortless for the enlightened butcher since his being radiates truth, and because his son can often hear that communication.
Man, have you any study of anthropology under your belt? Children are not scarred by the full and unfiltered truth. They are scarred by deception. Children in hunter-gatherer societies where hunting and butchering are public affairs are not seriously affected by what they see. However, dishonesty, obscurity, deception and the like do have the potential to mess with a kid's mind.

Your examples might captivate others on this forum, but behind them there are various presuppositions about the nature of children and enlightenment which are evidently taken for granted.

Post Reply