Reality Versus Truth?

I wanted to write about this one for some time, and I would like to invite those who come from a non-English speaking backgrounds to contribute. You can do so in comments.

In English the two (Truth and Reality) are separated, split into two words.. but here is an interesting thing..  in Latin there is no such separation:

Truth = Veritas

Reality = Veritas

They are one and the same perception, at least from how the ancient Romans understood it. Truth is your physical Reality as you know it. Nothing more and nothing else. I grokked that one many many moons ago, but strangely, it registers with very few, from my observations. So how did it split into two separate states in people’s minds? When did they start looking for ‘Truth’, instead completely ignoring what is staring them in the face every day – Reality?

I can also speak Russian because I am Russian by origin, even though it doesn’t get used much these days. In Russian it becomes more complicated. The meaning of ‘truth’ is represented by two words. One of them means ‘source’, a higher representation of Truth. Another is the closest to the meaning of the English word ‘truthful’. It reflects the two states of what truth is: one is the source of what you are, the real ‘you’, the reality of your origins. Another is a reflection of everyday mundane human affairs – are you, as a human, truthful and rightful?

The language itself never lies, it accurately reflects what is. It is people who misuse and abuse it, because most do not pay attention to the exactitude of its expression. This is why I said that after the Big Bang I learnt to read properly, learnt to see what is meant to be expressed.

I expressed this to Jed once. I expect he will make a comment on this one day somewhere in his writings. So to those who wonder why I always delete all that I write.. thoughts cost nothing. Books that express thoughts – cost quite a bit more than mere nothing.

Which takes me to one of the myths of Jed and non dualism, that of trying to kill one’s thoughts and the myth of a still Mind. The Mind is NEVER still, unless you are dead of course, but then there is no Mind as there is no you. There are no humans without thoughts. Value them. They are what makes us different from other animals.

First, there was Word (Logos). Light of Consciousness expressed as human thought versus Shadow of animalism in the absence of any conscious awareness.


Burnt Orange Geader


 

9 thoughts on “Reality Versus Truth?

  1. “Truth is your physical Reality as you know it. Nothing more and nothing else. I grokked that one many many moons ago, but strangely, it registers with very few, from my observations. So how did it split into two separate states in people’s minds? When did they start looking for ‘Truth’, instead completely ignoring what is staring them in the face every day – Reality?”

    Science claims that truth would be the exact sum total the opinions of the whole population on the planet. Objective reality. Subjective experience would suggest the exact opposite.

    I find the balance between the two, to be the most beneficial.

    1. The world of objective Reality and the world of mental imagination/deliberation ABOUT objective Reality are rather different. That’s where the split occurs.

      Remove the imaginings and voila! here comes the world as is.

      1. I fuckin love you Ness “as is” 🙂

        Careful with this thing. You’re catching alot of shade already. But I know you can hold your own.

  2. Good to see you, J.

    What keeps me going is Truth. That which I know beyond any doubt, both in the tangible world of ‘Jed McKenna’ facts and within self.

    How could I keep it all under wraps? I simply can’t.

  3. i have recently been purging the out-sourcing of truth/reality…my direct experience without the editorializing is all i need…just pay attention, the signs are always there…

  4. I couldn’t quite understand what you meant by:

    ‘The language itself never lies, it accurately reflects what is.’

    Do you mean that each word in a language is reflective of an objective counterpart, or that each word refers back to subjectivity, consciousness or state of being, or something else?

    And how does anyone know the exact meaning of any linguistic construct? Dictionary, where every word refers to another word?

    And how is ‘reading properly,’ something that involves seeing what is ‘meant to be expressed,’ rather than seeing just the expressed with minimum interpretation?

    Thank you

    1. Hi Anatta,

      As you said “each word in a language is reflective of an objective counterpart”, and that is what I mean. But that is not how people use the language.

      For instance, this much quoted JF Kennedy phrase:

      “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things (accomplishments and aspirations), not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

      What does that even mean? It is a meaningless (in terms of the actual language) phrase, but it is absolutely meaningful in terms of its intent. The intent was to stir and to give impetus.

      In short, humans abuse language by choosing it as an emotional tool to affect, rather than using it precisely to convey meanings.

      If JF Kennedy was completely honest he would have said “We choose to go to the moon because the fucking Russians got into space first. And we are absolutely not ready technologically, so it will be hard as hell, and there will be losses no doubt, but hey… let’s try anyways and show the Russian cunts and the world that America is great.”

      Read for the meaning first. Then read for the INTENT. The human intent is what counts, not the words.

    2. P.S. ‘Reading properly’ means ‘reading for meaning AND intent’.

      Where the intent and the actual meaning of the words converge – it is a true and real expression.

      For instance, many passages in Jed’s books are true in that way: they accurately represent Reality via the convergence of meaning and intent.

      But many are also fake, because their true intent is to elicit reaction.

      To simplify… “Say what you mean. Mean what you say”.

      I too am guilty. Human beings react to emotional cues, and most writers use this. If there is no emotionally pulling content – the writings may be true, but extremely boring. I’ve seen a few like that, and while I absolutely agreed with the writers’ premises, it was not an entertaining read.

      A lot of scientific texts fall into that ‘boring’ category too. Their only intent is to inform, hence, they are extremely dry, even if true.

Comments are closed.